for by the second respondent.
The appeals and the cross objection were heard by the District Judge of Bhavnagar and by a companymon judgment delivered on 12th October, 1963, the District Judge accepted the companytentions urged on behalf of the respondents and allowed the appeals.
Thereafter, the appellant preferred appeals to the High Court of Gujarat being Civil Second Appeals Nos.
452 and 453 of 1966.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated July 4, 1964 of the Gujarat High Court in Second Appeals Nos.
It was companytended that the demand asked for by the second respondent was 398 KVA, and, therefore, the first respondent was entitled in law to give direct supply to the second respondent.
The trial Judge, however, refused to grant the companysequential relief of injunction on the ground that the Board being a public authority companyld be expected to respect the law laid down by the Court and it was, therefore, number necessary to issue any injunction against the respondents, Aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial Judge the two respondents filed separate appeals in the District Court.
The appellant companypany alleged that the maximum demand of the appellant companypany in the relevant period, namely, September 1959 to December 1959 was between 262 to 349 KVA while the maximum demand of the second respondent had never exceeded 40 to 45 KVA.
The appellant preferred a cross objection companytending that the trial Judge was in error in refusing to grant injunction.
33 and 34 of 1964.
A. Mehta, B. K. Mehta, K. L. Hathi and Atiqur Rehman, for the appellant in both the appeals .
N. Shroff, for respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
33 and 34 of 1964.
The appellant companypany was originally generating and distributing electricity but at the relevant time it was a distributing licensee distributing the energy purchased in bulk from the first respondent within its area of supply.
and having its factory at Sihor within the area of supply of the appellant companypany.
45 of 1960 to obtain a declaration that the decision of the first respondent as companytained in its letters dated 3rd June, 1960 and 24th October, 1960 to give direct supply to the factory of the second respondent within the area of supply of the appellant and without its companysent was illegal and ultra vires its powers under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 Act No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. The appellant, the Sihor Electricity Works Ltd., is a public limited companypany carrying on the business of generating and distributing electrical energy under the licence granted to it under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, having its supply area within the limits of Sihor Town situated in the district of Bhavnagar in Saurashtra.
The case of the appellant was that the first respondent was number entitled to give direct supply to the second respondent as the maximum demand of the appellant at the time of request of the second respondent was more than twice the maximum demand asked.
of Gujarat.
The appellant brought a suit against the respondents in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division of Sihor being Civil Suit No.
L. Anand and K. B. Mehta, for respondent No.
The first respondent is the Gujarat Electricity Board which is a Corporation companystituted under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 for the purposes of generation, supply and distribution of electricity in the State.
1 in both the appeals .
The second respondent is the Saurashtra Electrical and Metal In dustries Private Ltd., a private limited companypany carrying on the business of manufacturing electrical accessories etc.
The trial Judge held that the decision of the first respondent to give direct supply of electricity to the second respondent was ultra vires the power of the first respondent under section 19 1 b ii of the Act and was, therefore, null and void and gave a declaration to that effect in favour of the appellant.
54 of 1948 hereinafter called the Act , and for a permanent injunction restraining the first respondent from implementing the said decision.
The first respondent companytested the suit on the ground that the decision was legal and proper because the maximum demand of the appellant company pany at the time of request was less than twice the maximum demand asked for by the second respondent from the first respondent.
2 in both the appeals .
The said appeals came for hearing before Mr. Justice P. N. Bhagwati, who dismissed the same by a companymon judgment dated 4th July, 1964.
