SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I., M.H. BEG AND P.N. SHINGHAL, JJ.
Vijayawada Municipal Council, Appellant
Versus
A.P. State Electricity Board and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 155 of 1971,
D/- 20-10-1976.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. V. Subrahamanyam, Sr. Advocate, 87 (Mr. A. Subba Rao, Ad-ocate with him), for Appellant; Mr. A. K. Sen Sr. Advocate, (M/s. K. R. Choudhary, Miss Nihar Saha and Mrs. Veena Devi Khanna, Advocates with him), for Respondents.
Andhra Pradesh Electricity Supply Undertaking Act 15 of 1954 - Electricity Act – Claim of compensation - Supply electricity energy - Plaintiffs claim flowed from the terms of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Supply Undertaking Act 15 of 1954 provisions of which were applied to electricity undertaking of appellant Municipal Council with effect from December by Government of Andhra Pradesh - Rights of the State were transferred to the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board the co-plaintiff respondent - Amounts claimed were shown in the books of Councils electricity undertaking on the date of its acquisition as due to it from direct consumers of electricity to whom it used to sell electricity supplied to it in bulk - Government may, in respect of any undertaking not taken over by them before the commencement of this Act, by order in writing declare that it shall vest in them on date specified therein such date not being earlier than four months from the date of declaration - Municipal Council was the licensee from whom the under taking as a commercial concern, was taken over. A licensee is defined by Section 2 (j) - A person licensed under part II of Electricity Act to supply electricity energy, or a person who has obtained sanction under Section 28 of Act to engage in business of supplying electricity and in relation to an undertaking taken over or an undertaking which has vested in Government under Section 4 the person who was licensee at time undertaking was taken over or vested in Government as the case may be and includes successor-in-interest of any such person – Held, Court do find that licensee had set up certain reasons for its inability to realize certain amounts from consumers – Court do not know that all these reasons precisely were or whether the licensee was really unable to realize them for any of these reasons - But, ground of the special leave petition shows that Municipal Council had with it in deposit for the recovery of claims not realized from which it proposed to deduct the amounts claimable towards dues and to appropriate them itself - Court may also mention that it was not argued on behalf of Municipal Council that what was vested in the Government was only the rights to realize claims itself and not an amount of money which Municipal Council had actually realized or could have realised if it took steps to make realizations - On the other hand, ground of grounds of appeal quoted above shows that case of the Municipal Council was simply that it is entitled to deduct amounts claimed from whatever may be amounts in deposit because claim against the consumers had vested in the Municipal Council and not in the Government – Court think that legal questions of interpretation of Act to which learned Counsel for the parties rightly confined their arguments apart from some attempts to raise questions outside pleadings which could not succeed were rightly answered by High Court when it held that the relevant provisions if correctly interpreted meant that the claims for dues on electricity supplied at enhanced rates validity of which had been unsuccessfully challenged by some consumers in certain other proceedings initiated before the filing of suit now before us had vested in State Government - Appeal dismissed
Judgment
BEG, J. :- This is a defendants appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh decreeing, with costs, the claim of the plaintiffs respondents, the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and the Andhra Pradesh State Government for Rupees 3,34,443.77 as arrears of electricity charges said to be due from the Vijayawada Municipal Council in respect of amounts which were shown in its books as payable to it by consumers of electricity.
2. The plaintiffs claim flowed from the terms of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Electricity Supply Undertaking (Acquisition) Act 15 of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the provisions of which were applied to the electricity undertaking of the appellant Municipal Council with effect from 22nd December 1961, by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The rights of the State were transferred to the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board the co-plaintiff respondent. The amounts claimed were shown in the books of the Councils electricity undertaking on the date of its acquisition as due to it from direct consumers of electricity to whom it used to sell electricity supplied to it in bulk.
3. The "Electricity Undertaking" was taken over by the Government by an order under Sec. 4 (1) of the Act. This section provided :
"4. Power of Government to take over any undertaking :-
(1) The Government may, in respect of any undertaking not taken over by them before the commencement of this Act, by order in writing, declare that it shall vest in them on the date specified therein, such date not being earlier than four months from the date of the declaration."
4. The Municipal Council was the licensee from whom the "under taking", as a commercial concern, was taken over. A licensee is defined by Section 2 (j) to mean :
".... A person licensed under part II of the Electricity Act to supply electricity energy, or a person who has obtained sanction under Section 28 of the Act to engage in the business of supplying electricity and in relation to an undertaking taken over or an undertaking which has vested in the Government under Section 4 the person, who was the licensee at the time the undertaking was taken over or vested in the Government, as the case may be, and includes the successor-in-interest of any such person;"
5. The State Electricity Board stepped into the shoes of the licensee on behalf of the State, to discharge all the existing obligations of the licensee, arising out of past transactions, and, for this reason, became entitled to the benefits of all contracts, whether they had accured in the past or were to arise in future which existed at the time of the taking over of the undertaking.
6. The effect of the "taking over" of an undertaking and the vesting of the rights and liabilities of the former licensee in the State, by operation of law, was indicated by Sections 5 and 6 of the Act.
7. Section 5 provided for compensation to be paid on one of three alternative bases specified in this provision. The licensee could opt for one of the three bases.
8. The provisions of Section 6 (2) of the Act give the consequences of vesting. Section 6 (2) of the Act enacts :
"6. (2) (a) If compensation is payable in respect of an undertaking under Basis C, only the property, rights liabilities and obligations specified herein shall vest or be deemed to have vested in the Government on the vesting date -
(i) all the fixed assets of the licensee and all the documents relating to the undertaking :
(ii) all the rights, liabilities and obligations of the licensee under hire-purchase agreements, if any, for the supply of materials or equipment made bona fide before the vesting date;
(iii) all the rights, liabilities and obligations of the licensee under any other contract entered into bona fide before the vesting date, not being a contract relating to the borrowing or lending for money.
(b) All the assets specified in clause (a) (i) shall vest or shall be deemed to have vested in the Government free from
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.