Advocates:
D.N.Mishra, F.S.NARIMAN, I.M.SHROFF, J.B.DADACHAN, M.C.CHAGLA

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The case concerns whether a reference by the Electricity Company to arbitration of the Central Electricity Authority (the Authority) constitutes a bar to the constitution of a Rating Committee by the Electricity Board under Section 57A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (!) .

2. The dispute originated from the Electricity Company's notice to revise electricity rates, which was contested by the Board and the State Government, leading to disagreements over financial data and the justification for rate increases (!) (!) .

3. The Electricity Company claimed that a dispute existed between it and the Board, which was referred to arbitration of the Authority within the statutory timeframe, thus preventing the Board from constituting a Rating Committee (!) (!) .

4. The High Court held that such a dispute was referable to arbitration under the relevant provisions, rendering the subsequent constitution of the Rating Committee illegal and without jurisdiction (!) .

5. The legal question centers on whether disputes between the Board and the licensee are arbitrable under the statutory provisions, especially considering that the arbitration clause in the license was primarily between the licensee and the State Government, not the Board (!) (!) .

6. The statutory framework indicates that disputes under the license are generally to be arbitrated between the licensee and the State Government or the Board, but only if explicitly provided; there is no clear statutory obligation for disputes between the Board and the licensee to be arbitrated before the Authority (!) (!) .

7. The arbitration clause in the license (paragraph XVI of the Sixth Schedule) explicitly applies to disputes between the licensee and the State Government, not the Board, and thus does not automatically extend to disputes between the Board and the licensee (!) (!) .

8. The second proviso to Section 57A of the Act restricts the constitution of a Rating Committee if there is an existing dispute or difference as to the interpretation of the Schedule's provisions that has been referred to arbitration before the notice for the Rating Committee is issued (!) (!) .

9. The dispute in question was not a reference made under paragraph XVI of the Schedule by the licensee against the State Government but was a reference by the licensee against the Board, which does not fall within the scope of the arbitration clause (!) (!) .

10. The Court concluded that, in the absence of an explicit statutory provision or agreement, disputes solely between the Board and the licensee are not arbitrable before the Authority under the provisions discussed, and therefore, the High Court's decision was not sustainable in law (!) (!) .

11. The case was remanded to the High Court for further disposal, considering other issues raised, with the understanding that the dispute did not fall within the scope of the statutory arbitration provisions as interpreted (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you require further analysis or clarification on any specific aspect.