SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(SC) 676

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND M.H. KANIA, JJ.
U.P. Hotels etc., Appellants
Versus
U.P. State Electricity Board, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 756 of 1988
Decided on 28-10-1988.
Advocates appeared
Mr. F. S. Nariman, Mr. M. L. Verma Sr. Advocates; Mr. Jeet Mahajan and Mr. Rajit Kumar, Advocates with them, for Appellants; Mr. B. Sen. Sr. Advocate; Mr. Gopal Subramanium and Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, Advocates with him, for Respondent.

Advocates:
B.SEN, DIKSHIT, F.S.NARIMAN, GOPAL SUBRAMANIUM, JIT MAHAJAN, M.L.Verma, RANJIT GHOSAL

Headnote:

Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 – Section 49(1) and (2) - Indian Electricity Act, 1910 - Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 – Electricity bill - Defective Meter Installation - This appeal by special leave is from the judgment and order of the High Court - There was a Bulk Supply Agreement entered into between Agra Electric Supply Co. Ltd. and appellant herein, for supply of electrical energy to latter hotel, inter alia, containing terms of rates, discounts, minimum sum payable and increase in rates and sums payable once a year on account of increase in cost of production and distribution of electrical energy - Consumer shall, subject to provisions hereinafter contained, pay to Company for all electrical energy supplied and registered or estimated as herein provided at the rate per unit per month for all energy so supplied and registered and/or estimated in the case of a defective meter installation in accordance with proviso to clause 6 thereof - Charge for all energy shall be subject to the scale of special discounts in accordance with the schedule annexed thereto - Whether there was an error on face of the award, to be regarded as forming part of award – Held, in present case only difference is that there was only an agreement by which Electricity Board accepted agreement which was held by Umpire to have become operative - Once that agreement was binding on Board, its terms could not be varied from uniform rate under sub-sections (1) & (2) of S. 49 - Umpire was right - In court opinion, Umpire committed no error in arriving at such conclusion - Furthermore such a conclusion is certainly a possible view of interpretation of decision of this Court in Indian Aluminium. Co.s case, if not the only view – Court need go no further than that - Court are of the opinion that view taken by Umpire on S. 49 was a possible view in the light of decision of this Court in Indian Aluminiums case - In the premises, a question of law arose certainly during the course of the proceedings - Even on the assumption that such a view is not right, the award is not amenable to interference or correction by the courts of law as there is no proposition of law which could be said to be the basis of the award of the Umpire, and which is erroneous - In the premises, court are of the opinion that High Court and the learned IInd Additional District Judge were in error in the view they took of award of the Umpire - Appeal must be allowed and decision of the High Court, as well as the order of IInd Additional Judge are set aside - No other point was urged challenging the award of the Umpire - Award of the Umpire is confirmed and let the award be made Rule of the Court under section 14(2) of Act - Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.:— This appeal by special leave is from the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad, dated 21st July, 1987. The High Court has set aside the award of the Umpire. To appreciate the decision and the contentions urged, a few facts are necessary.

2. On or about 20th October, 1962 there was a Bulk Supply Agreement entered into between Agra Electric Supply Co. Ltd. and the appellant herein, for supply of electrical energy to the latters hotel, inter alia, containing terms of rates, discounts, minimum sum payable and increase in the rates and sums payable once a year on account of increase in cost of production and distribution of electrical energy. Clause 9 of the said agreement contained terms of the rate of supply and the contingencies in which such rates could be increased. The said Clause provided as follows:

"The consumer shall, subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, pay to the Company for all electrical energy supplied and registered or estimated as herein provided at the rate of Rs. 0.20 (Rupees zero decimal two zero) per unit per month for all energy so supplied and registered and/or estimated in the case of a defective meter installation in accordance with the proviso to clause 6 thereof. The charge for all energy shall be subject to the scale of special discounts in accordance with the schedule annexed thereto.

Provided That, (without regard to the quantity of units supplied) if the payment made or to be made for any one English Calender year ending 31st March in respect of the electricity consumed shall fall short of a minimum sum of Rs. 38640/- (Rs. Thirty eight thousand six hundred and forty) the consumer shall nevertheless pay to the Company such amount in addition to the payments already made in respect of the electricity consumed for such Calendar year as will, being the total payment made in this respect to the said minimum of Rs. 38640/- (Rs. Thirty eight thousand six hundred and forty).

Provided Further that, in the event of the first and last years of this Agreement not being complete calender year as aforesaid the Company shall make a proportionate reduction on the aforesaid annual Maximum Demand and Minimum charges in respect of the period for which the said first and last year as the case may be shall be less than a complete calendar year.

Provided Also That, if and whenever during the subsistence of this Agreement the Company is satisfied that there has been an increase in the cost of production and distribution of electrical energy it shall be at liberty (but not more than once in any year of accounts) to increase the rates and sums payable by the Consumer under the foregoing provision of this present clause 9 by such amount as it shall in its sole and absolute discretion decide."

3. There was a clause providing for arbitration i.e. clause 18 which read as follows :

"If any question or difference whatsoever shall arise between the parties to these presents as to the interpretation or effect of any provision or clause herein contained or the construction thereof or as to any other matter in any way connected with or arising out of these presents or the operation thereof or the rights, duties or liabilities of either party in connection therewith, when unless the means for deciding any such question or difference is provided for by the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 or the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 as the case may be, or by the rules made respectively under the said Acts or by a specific provision of this Agreement, in every such case the matter in difference shall be referred to the Arbitration of two Arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party hereto, and an Umpire to be appointed by the Arbitrators before entering upon the reference and the decision or award of the said Arbitrators or Umpire shall be final and binding on the parties hereto and any reference made under this clause shall be deemed to be a submission to arbitration under the Indian Arbitration










































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top