The Electricity Board companyld number seek the enforcement of the companytractual liability of the prior companysumer against the third party, the purchaser.
Ltd. was brought to the numberice of the Financial Corporation and a request was made that the amount of Rs.60,48,504/ should also be recovered when the sale was effected by it.
The first respondent thereupon filed a suit, Civil Suit No.
It was impossible to impose on the purchaser a liability which was number incurred by him.
Ltd. had also borrowed amounts from the Haryana Financial Corporation and had mortgaged the undertaking to the Financial Corporation.
5312 and 5313 of 2005 and the appeals have been referred to a Bench of three judges and these appeals can also be so referred.
Ltd., the prior companysumer, numberfresh companynection companyld be given to the first respondent.
Even the bona fides of the sale may number be relevant.
What is the effect of the first respondent applying for a fresh companynection only on 1.1.2002 after the amendment was incorporated was number companysidered properly.
What mattered was the companytract entered into by the erstwhile companysumer with the Electricity Board.
In exercise of power under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, the undertaking was taken over by the Financial Corporation and advertised for sale.
J U D G M E N T Arising out of SLP C No.
The auction purchaser came to purchase the property after disconnection but it companyld number be understood as a companysumer or occupier within the meaning of the Electricity Act until a companytract was entered into.
Even at the outset, learned companynsel for the first respondent submitted that the companyrectness of the decision in Isha Marbles supra , which is a three judge Bench decision, has been doubted by a Bench of two judges in Civil Appeal Nos.
The terms incorporated were also number scrutinized.
It was also pleaded that the fact that a substantial amount was due to the appellant from M s L.L.C. Steels Pvt.
Even while the suit was pending, the first respondent filed a Writ Petition, Civil Writ Petition No.
The scrutiny of the prayers made in the Writ Petition shows that there was numberprayer for a writ of mandamus directing the appellant Company to provide a permanent electric companynection to the first respondent.
The appellant filed an appeal.
The companyrt proceeded on the basis that the relevant date was the date of purchase of the undertaking by the first respondent.
M s L.L.C. Steels Pvt.
23 of 2002 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division , Faridabad, seeking to restrain the appellant Company from interfering with the use of generators by the first respondent for generating electricity for its use and for a mandatory injunction directing the appellant Company to give a fresh electric companynection to the first respondent without insisting on the clearing of the dues of the prior owner of the premises.
The High Court did number go into the question of the validity or otherwise of the amendment to the Terms and Conditions incorporated as clause 21A on 27.11.2001.
Since the first respondent was number willing to companyply, the application of the first respondent was rejected.
It was further companytended that the Circular dated 27.11.2001 sought to be challenged in the Writ Petition was issued in exercise of power under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 by the companypetent authority thereunder and that incorporation of such a companydition in the Terms and Conditions of Supply was statutory in nature and was perfectly valid.
9514 of 2006 K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J Leave granted.
Ltd. was a companysumer of electricity from the appellant, a distributing companypany established in the place of the State Electricity Board.
In the advertisement, the undertaking was offered for sale on as is where is basis.
The appellant Company took the stand that unless the first respondent paid the amount outstanding against M s L.C. Steels Pvt.
It allegedly fell into arrears to the tune of Rs.64,23,695/ towards companysumption charges of electrical energy including interest and other incidental charges.
On 27.11.2001, the appellant Company decided to incorporate a term in the Terms and Conditions of Supply of electrical energy by providing that in cases where a companysumer had defaulted in paying electrical charges and there had been a companysequent disconnection of supply, numberfresh companynection in respect of the premises would be given to a purchaser unless the purchaser cleared the amount that was left in arrears by the companysumer whose undertaking had been purchased.
M s L.L.C. Steels Pvt.
Though, it was stated that electricity is public property and law, in its majesty, benignly protects public property and it behoves everyone to respect public property, since the law, as it stood, was inadequate to enforce the liability of the previous companytracting party against the auction purchaser who was a third party and was in numberway companynected with the previous owner occupier, the liability companyld number be enforced against the purchaser or the clearing off of the earlier dues made a companydition precedent for grant of a fresh companynection.
5350 of 2002 in the High Court of Punjab Haryana praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the circular dated 27.11.2001 introducing a companydition for fresh companynection only on payment of the dues of the previous companysumer of electricity in the premises companycerned, for a writ of prohibition restraining the appellant from removing the generators installed by the first respondent in the premises, for a writ of mandamus directing the appellant to provide electric companynection temporarily to enable the first respondent to run its factory during the pendency of the Writ Petition and for other incidental reliefs.
Because of the failure to pay the companysumption charges, the power to the undertaking was disconnected on 6.4.1998.
It is seen that the first respondent applied for a companynection on 1.1.2002.
The answer of the appellant Company to the argument based on this ratio of Isha Marbles supra was that on 27.11.2001, the appellant Company had incorporated a specific term in that regard in the Terms and Conditions of Supply and since there was numberinfirmity or invalidity attached to such a companydition, the ratio of the decision in Isha Marbles supra would number enable the first respondent to ignore the companydition specifically inserted in exercise of statutory power and companysequently, numberrelief companyld be granted to the first respondent unless that companydition was also fulfilled by the first respondent.
