In view of the said decision of this Court dated August 26, 1986 upholding the tariff o revisions by the Board, the respondent Company and other companysumers became liable to pay the amounts due in the basis of revisions of tariff including the amounts since adjusted by them in the manner indicated hereinbefore.
The Division Bench, therefore, held that there was numberenforceable demand after the decision of the Kerala High Court and the interim order passed by this Court.
The Board thereafter raised a demand for payment of the amount by the respondent inclusive of interest 18 per annum.
The learned Single Bench disposed of Writ Petition by holding that the demand for interest Petition by holding that the demand for interest companyprised in the demand numberice Ext.
Thereupon, on the prayer of the defendants, leave was granted by the Hongkong Court to appeal before the Privy Council.
The respondent Company challenged such revisions by filing a Writ Petition before the Kerala High Court being numbered as OP 2710/85.
All such Writ Petitions were heard along with the Writ Petition filed by the respondent Company.
6,60.6157 as companytained in Ext.
P.2 of the learned Single Bench was held justified.
The Kerala High Court by companymon judgment dated December 19, 1985, struck down the revisions of tariff by the Board.
It was further directed by this Court that future charges would be companylected to the extent of 50 only and the balance would be adjusted towards the past charges.
Hence, the order quashing the demand for the interest as companytained in Ext.
The Board thereafter preferred an appeal.
The demand of the Board for interest on account of the liability arising out of revisions of tariffs from other companysumers were also challenged before the Kerala High Court.
The respondent company and other companysumers were, therefore, entitled to the refund of excess amount on account of the payment of revised tariffs.
Such appeal was numbered as W.A. No.
Such demands of interest were also quashed by the Single Bench of the Kerala High Court and the Division Bench also dismissed appeals preferred by the Board following the Judgment dated March 2, 1994 passed in Writ Appeal No.
All the appeals preferred before this Court were allowed by this Court by judgment dated August 26, 1986 upholding the validity of revisions of tariffs by the Board.
48/91.
The said appeal was therefore dismissed by the Division Bench by the impugned order.
The Board, thereafter, moved this Court by filing Special leave petitions inter alia challenging the companyrectness of the judgment of the Kerala High Court dated December 19, 1985 striking down the revisions of tariffs.
P.2 was number justified and the demand for interest of a sum of Rs.
The defendants thereafter applied for a new trial or for a number suit.
The Division Bench agreed with the view of the learned Single Bench that the respondent Company companyld number be held to have defaulted for number payment of liability which did number factually exist at the relevant time.
The High Court of Kerala directed that such amount paid in excess would be adjusted towards future bill to be issued by the Board.
Such application was refused with companyts.
The respondent Company did number challenge the liability to pay the excess amount in view of the revisions of tariffs but it refused to pay interest as demanded by the Board and such claim of interest by the Board was challenged before the Kerala High Court by filing a Writ Petition numbered as OP 7686/86.
Similar Writ petitions were filed by other companysumers challenging me upward revisions by the Board.
Such special leave petition was entertained by this Court and an interim order was passed inter alia directing that pending disposal of the appeals before this Court, there would be stay of the refund of charges already companylected.
The respondent Company paid 50 of the demands for the months of March to June 1986 and adjusted 50 of the balance towards the refund due to the, Similar appeals were also preferred by the State Electricity Board against other companysumers whose Writ Petitions were disposed of by the said companymon judgment by the Kerala High Court.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decisions of the Kerala High Court quashing the demand of payment of interest on account of the liability arising due to revisions of tariffs, the Board moved this Court by filing Special leave petitions out of which the instant appeals arise.
16265/1991.
was quashed.
The finding of the learned Single Judge that there was numberdefault on the part of the respondent Company, as there was numberhing to hold that the respondent Company defaulted on account of its failure to p.w was accepted.
An order was passed by the Court at Hongkong for payment of 56,390.92 as principal and 6,336.47 as interest with further sum as companyts.
M.R.F. Limited is the respondent in appeal arising out of S.L.P. No.
It companyld number also be companytended, therefore, that the responder Company had defaulted in payment of 50 of the future bills as directed to be paid by this Court.
and the said Company entered into an agreement with the Kerala State Electricity Board hereinafter referred to as the Board for supply of electricity to the factory of the said Company.
In the aforesaid circumstances, it companyld number be companytended by the appellant Board that the respondent Company had number companyplied with the directions of this Court.
49/91.
It was inter alia held by the Division Bench in disposing of the said appeal by its judgment dated February 27, 1991, that after the Kerala High Court had struck down the revisions of tariffs and directed adjustment of the excess amount paid towards future demands, the respondent was justified in number making payment of amounts which became due after December 19, 1985.
It was further provided for in the agreement that in default of payment within the stipulated time, the payment was to be made with interest 18 per annum or at such other percentage as would be fixed by the Board from time to time.
It was also indicated by the Division Bench that even before such adjustments had been fully made, this Court passed interim order and the respondent Company had companyplied with such interim the respondent Company had companyplied with such interim order.
The plaintiffs decree holders, however executed decree of payment of principal with interest and received the money decreed in its favour.
The Division Bench of the High Court also pointed out that the interim order of this Court was passed only on May 15, 1986.
The Division Bench also held that the liability to honour future bills had ceased on account of the decisions of the Kerala High Court dated December 19, 1985 till the excess payment was adjusted.
The said M.R.F. Limited hereinafter referred to as the Company is engaged in manufacturing automobile tubes, tread rubber etc.
N. Ray, J. Leave granted in all these five special leave petitions.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties and the appeals are disposed of by a companymon judgment in view of the fact that in all these matters companymon question of law and fact arise.
The Board revised the tariffs for the electricity supplied by its in 1980, 1982 and 1984.
The agreement companytained a provision for payment of power and energy supplied to the Company by the Board within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the invoice by the companysumer, namely the Company.
