ORDER

1. After the respondent No.1, Patna Electric Supply Company Limited (PESCO), was taken over by the appellant, Bihar State Electricity Board (BSEB), certain disputes arose regarding payment of compensation by BSEB to PESCO in respect of the assets of PESCO. This resulted in litigation and ultimately in C.A. No.2630 of 1982 this Court, while granting leave, directed that BSEB would pay to PESCO the purchase price on the basis of book-value in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Since payments were not made by BSEB to PESCO in terms of the said directions, PESCO filed I.A. No.5 for appropriate directions to be given to BSEB in this regard.

2. On 8.1.2005, after noting that what was payable by BSEB to PESCO was the book-value and not the market value of the assets of PESCO, this Court, after taking into consideration the submissions of the respective parties, came to the conclusion that the net amount of compensation payable to PESCO worked out to 135.45 lakhs. Out of the said amount, a sum of 99.72 lakhs had already been paid by BSEB to PESCO, leaving a balance amount of 35.74 lakhs payable by BSEB to PESCO. It was also noted that under the directions of this Court the balance amount of 35.74 lakhs had been paid by BSEB to the Bank of India to liquidate the dues of PESCO.

3. In addition to the above, a further sum of 36.59 lakhs was shown as liability in the accounts of PESCO. It was noted that it was not the case of BSEB that the said amount had been paid by it to the aforesaid Bank. On the other hand, it was noted that it was PESCO’s case that this amount had been paid by it to the Bank of India and in support thereof a ‘No Objection Certificate’ dated 21.3.2001 issued by the Bank in favour of PESCO had been placed on record. On the basis of the aforesaid calculations and the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, I.A. No.5 was disposed of with the following observations :

(1) The amount of consumer dues calculated while arriving at the book value of the assets of PESCO cannot be questioned by BSEB at this stage;

(2) PESCO is entitled to the sum of Rs.36.59 lakhs provided it has made the payment on that account to the Bank; and

(3) PESCO is entitled to interest in the manner above stated on filing requisite material on record along with an affidavit showing payment of interest.

4. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on several occasions to enable PESCO to prove that such payment had actually been made by PESCO to the Bank of India on account whereof the said amount was shown as a liability in PESCO’s accounts. On 26.3.2009, the Bank of India, Kolkata Main Branch, was directed to supply the statements relating to the cash credit account maintained by PESCO for the period commencing from 1973 till the closure of the account. Leave was given to the appellant to respond to the same once the statements were made available by the Bank. Ultimately, on 30.9.2010 it was submitted on behalf of the Bank that the information, as was required to be given, had been filed by way of separate affidavits and leave was also granted to file an additional affidavit to place on record certain other documents.

5. The first affidavit affirmed on behalf of the Bank on 31.10.2006 mentions a final settlement arrived at between the Bank and PESCO, to the tune of 45.93 lakhs and with the interest accrued thereupon the amount became 48.34 lakhs. According to the Bank records, the said amount was paid by PESCO between 15.1.2001 to 19.12.2001. The second affidavit affirmed on behalf of the Bank indicates that the balance as was outstanding in the Cash Credit Account of PESCO, as on 5.2.1974, was 37,26,137.77. It was also made clear that a sum of 84,08,363/- had been received by the Bank, out of which BSEB had paid 38.74 lakhs and PESCO had paid 48,34,363/-. It is, therefore, clear that the Bank received two amounts, one from BSES and the other from PESCO. It is also clear that the amount of 35.74 lakhs paid by