By the order dated March 10, 1992, the Division Bench of the Allahand High Court passed an interim order on another Writ Petition filed by the appellant on March 9, 1992 challenging the action of the U.P. State Electricikty Board in respect of the bill dated January, 1992 and disconnecting the supply of electricity in the factory of the appellant.
Such revised bill was also assailed by the respondent Company before the Bombay High Court in Misc.
1672/88 in the Allahabad High Court challenging the said bills for June and July, 1988.
Thereafter, the fourth Writ Petition number numbered as yet was moved by the appellant on March 9, 1992 in respect of bill for January, 1992 in which an interim order was passed on March 10, 1992.
173 of 1979 and such appeal has been allowed by the impugned judgment dated April 4, 1985.
10379 of 1988 challenging the numberice dated April 26, 1988 and the demand dated May 17, 1988 of the U.P.State Electricity Board and Writ Petition No.
By the order dated March 10, 1992, the High Court directed the appellant to deposit Rs.
Thereafter, the respondent preferred the said Appeal No.
2,28,750.70 was served on the respondent companypany.
1662 of 1979.
16723/88 and 16325/90 challenging the validity of the bills for the month of June and july, 1988 issued by the u.p.
5,54,963.64 ending July 1988 on the basis of check meter.
5850497 in the factory of the apopellant.
On May 17, 1987, the Electricity Board raised a demand of Rs.10,70,886.82 for the period May, 1987 to November, 1987 on the basis of readings in the check meter and threatene the appellant that the electricity companynection would be discontinued if the payment was number made.
The appellant then moved another Writ Petition No.
No reference to the Electrical Inspector was made under Section 26 of the Electricity Act, 1910 by the Board.
During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the electricity Board again raised bills for teh months of June, 1988 on the basis of check meter and also thereatened the appellant that disconnection would be restorted to if the payment was number made.
10379 of 1988 challenging the said numberice dated April 26, 1988 and the demand datd may 17, 1988.
It was at this stage that the appellant moved a Writ Petition No.
2538 of 1985 is directed against the judgment dated April 4, 1985 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowing Appeal No.
5850497.
The appellan, however, deposited the testing fee and requested the Electricity Board to check the said test meter.
1571 of 1987.
10 lacs and on such deposit, the u.P. State Electricity Board was to restore the companynection within 24 house and also directing the U.P. State Electricity Board to prepare the bills for the period subsequent to 10.10.90 within a month with a further direction to the appellant to pay such bill within a month thereafter.
The Electricity Board raised additional demand of Rs.
The relevant facts leading to the companytroversy as to the raising demands for the bills and the companysequential direction passed by the High Court on February 19,1992 and March 10, 1992 are stated hereunder.
State Electricity Board and also the deamdn dated June 14, 1990 made by the said Board.
On April 26, 1988 to November, 1987 companyld be revised o the basis of check meter and sought information for the purpose of revising of the bills prior to 1987.
1571 OF 1987, 2538 OF 1985 AND 1255 OF 1986 J U D G M E N T N.RAY,J. The appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition Nos.
10379 of 1988, 16723 of 1988 and 126325 of 1990 and also the interim order dated March 10, 1992 passed in the Writ Petition No.
The impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court in O.S. Appeal No.890 of 1983 has been passed following the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated April 4, 1985 in Bharat Barrel Drum Manufacturing Companys case.
16325/90 challenging the demand dated June 4, 1990 for the said sum of Rs.
By the impugned judgment dated Febraury 19, 1992, the High Court guashed various demand numberices issued to the appellant on the basis of check meters installed by the respondent P.State Electricity Board and directing that payment for six months would be made on the basis of estimate of Electrical Inspector dated october 10, 1990 and further directing that the fresh bills for the period 7.9.87 to 10.10.90 be issued on the basis of new meter.
Civil Appeal No.
On September 7, 1987, the U.p.
Such interim order is also impugned in one of these appeals.
376 of 1973 in the Bombay High Court, on June 20, 1973, and a companysent order was passed in the said petition where the appellant agrred number to disconnect the electric supply for number payment of the amoun demanded during the pendency of the reference.
On Febraury 7, 1986 U.P. State electricity Board installed a meter bearing No.
2538 of 195 and Civil Appeal No.
5262 64 of 1992 are directed against order dated February 19, 1992 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court disposing of Writ Petition Nos.
The Board carried out periodical inspection and tests and had raised the bills on the basis of the said installed meter and the appellant had also paid such bills.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the said petition by upholding the claim of the respondent appellant.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
The Board installed a check meter on November 30, 1987.
Petition No.
Petition No.1148 of 1973.
1571 of directed against Order dated July 1, 1987 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in O.S. Appeal No.
By an interim order, the High Court restrained the desconnection of the electric supply subject to thepayment of electricity dues by the appellant on the basis of original meter reading and furnishing security and bank guarantee for Rs.1 lakh every month.
On July 10, 1973, the Electrical Inspector found that the meter in question was recording 71.9 slow reading and such error was beyond the prescribed limit.
On October 25, 1987, the appellant companytroverted the companytents of the said numberice of the Electricity Board and asserted that the meter was companyrect.
The appellant moved the third Writ Petition on June 21 1990 being writ petition No.
890 of 1983 arising from Misc.
The Board, however, companytinued to raise the bills on the basis of the said check meter for the period December, 1987 to May, 1988.
nil field by the appellant M s Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. in the Allahabad High Court on March 9, 1992.1,68,402.90 to the respondent Company.
The appellant thereafter revised its bills in the light of th decision of the Electical Inspector and reduced the claim and sent the companyrected revised Bills for a sum of Rs.
173 of 1979 preferred by the respondent Bharat Barrel Drum Manufacturing Company Limited assailing the order of dismissal of the Writ Petition of the said respondent by a Single Judge of the High Court, Civil Appeal No.
State Electricity Board issued a numberice raising doubt about the companyrectness of the said meter No.
The respondent companypany moved a Misc Petition No.
