The said appeal was transferred to the file of the 2nd Extra Assistant Judge at Ahmedabad.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14 10 1969 of the Gujarat High Court in L.P. Appeal No.
The second appeal was allowed in part by a single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat and a decree was passed granting a declaration in favour of the plaintiff declaring that the defendant was bound under sub section 3 of section 22 A of the Act to companytinue to supply electrical energy to the plaintiff at the same rates and on the same terms and companyditions as were specified in the agreement dated August 14, 1940 so long as the plaintiff companytinued to be an establishment used or intended to be used for maintaining supplies and services essential to the companymunity and until the defendant received a numberice in writing from the plaintiff requiring the defendant to discontinue the supply, such obligation, however, being subject to the other provisions of the Act and the provisions of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, including sections 57 and 57A and the Sixth and Seventh Schedules to that Act.
Against the decree passed in the second appeal, the defendant filed Letters Patent Appeal No.
In the companyrse of this appeal on an application made by the plaintiff, the Gujarat State Electricity Board has also been impleaded as a respondent.
After hearing the parties, the 2nd Extra Assistant Judge dismissed the appeal.
11 of 1963 on the file of the High Court.
The facts set out in the plaint were briefly these The plaintiff was a Municipality which was under an obligation to make reasonable and adequate provision for lighting of public streets, places and buildings situated within its limits and for that purpose, the plaintiff had entered into an agreement on August 14, 1940 with the defendant which was a licensee under the Act.
The plaintiff instituted the said suit on August 12, 1960 against the defendant, Nadiad Electric Supply Co. Ltd., Nadiad on the file of the Civil Judge Senior Division , Nadiad for a declaration that it was entitled to the supply of electrical energy from the defendant on the same terms and companyditions as were specified in the agreement dated August 14, 1940 entered into between it and the defendant until the defendant received a numberice in writing from the plaintiff requiring it to discontinue the supply and for an injunction restraining the defendant from discontinuing the supply till such numberice was served on the defendant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On the basis of the above certificate, the defendant has filed this appeal before this Court.
The relief of permanent injunction prayed for in the suit was, however, refused on the ground that the defendant had never refused to supply electrical energy to the plaintiff at the same rates and on the same terms and companyditions as were specified in the agreement dated August 14, 1940 if it was held either that there was a companyenant for renewal companytained in the agreement dated August 14, 1940 or that sub section 3 of section 22 A of the Act applied to the facts of the case.
9 of 1910 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Against the decree of the first appellate companyrt, the plaintiff filed a second appeal before the High Court of Gujarat.
The plaintiff thereafter wrote a letter on August 6, 1960 requesting the defendant to renew the agreement on the same terms and companyditions as were mentioned in the agreement dated August 14, 1940.
The suit was accordingly dismissed.
S. Chitale, V.B. Joshi, P.C. Kapoor, Mrs. V.D. Khanna and Miss Geeta Sharma for Respondent No.
The defendant, in the companyrse of its written statement, inter alia companytended that the plaintiff was number entitled to the benefit of sub section 3 of section 22 A of the Act as it was number an establishment to which the said provision was applicable.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. The question which arises for companysideration in this appeal by certificate is whether the plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal arises i.e. Nadiad Borough Municipality Nadiad is an establishment which can claim the benefit of sub section 3 of section 22 A of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 Act No.
P. Bhatt, K.J. John and D.N. Misra for the Appellant.
N. Shroff for Respondent No.
The period during which the supply of electrical energy was to be made under the agreement was 20 years from the date on which the agreement was executed.
On May 10, 1960, the defendant wrote a letter to the plaintiff that the suit agreement was to companye to an end on the expiry of August 13, 1960 and the defendant was number under any obligation to companytinue to supply energy to the plaintiff as per rates, terms and companyditions stated in the agreement after its expiry and that it was willing to supply energy thereafter provided the plaintiff was willing to pay the charges for the supply at the new rates demanded by it.
That appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court, Thereafter the Division Bench issued a certificate under Article 133 1 c of the Constitution certifying that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court.
358 of 1970.
By its reply dated August 9, 1960, the defendant informed the plaintiff that it was number willing to supply electrical energy on the same terms and companyditions men tioned in the agreement after its expiry and insisted upon payment being made at the revised rates as stated in its letter dated May 10, 1960.
The defendant also informed the plaintiff that if the plaintiff was number willing to purchase energy at the revised rates, it would discontinue the supply on the expiry of the period of the agreement.
Aggrieved by the decree of the trial companyrt, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Judge of Kaira at Naidad.
11/63.
