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

2012 Supreme(SC) 802

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM & RANJAN GOGOI, JJ.
SPECIAL OFFICER, COMMERCE, NORTH EASTERN ELECTRICITY COMPANY OF ORISSA (NESCO) & ANR. - Appellants
VERSUS
M/S RAGHUNATH PAPER MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. - Respondent (s)
Civil Appeal No. 7899 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 35573 of 2010)
Decided on : 09-11-2012.

IMPORTANT POINT
Liability of purchaser of premises to pay electricity dues of defaulter predecessor.

Headnote:(a) Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Conditions of Supply), Code, 2004 - Regulation 13(10) - The provision applies to transfer of service connection - It does not apply to fresh connection. (Paras 12)

        (1995) 2 SCC 648; AIR 2009 SC 647: (2009) 1 SCC 210; (2004) 3 SCC 587; (2010) 9 SCC 145 - Relied upon

        (b) Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 43 - Casts a duty on every distributing licencee to supply electricity on the application made by the owner or occupier of any premises within 1 month after receipt of the application - This however would be subject to conditions such as installation of machinery, deposit of security etc. (Para 13)

        (c) Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Conditions of Supply), Code, 2004 - Regulations 3 and 10 - Other dues - Refers to security and other charges - Not the arrears of electricity dues payable by earlier defaulter consumer. (Para 15)

       Facts of the case:

        On liquidation of M/s Konark Paper & Industries Ltd. the paper mill was purchased by M/s Raghunath Paper Mills.

        When the purchaser applied for electricity connection the Supply Company (NESCO) asked it to pay all arrears on the premises.

        The High Court directed NESCO to provide electricity.

        The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether a Company, which purchased the property of another Company under liquidation through auction, is liable to pay the arrears of electricity dues outstanding against the erstwhile Company.

       Finding of the Court:

        Impugned judgment does not require interference.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 04.11.2010 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Appeal No. 237 of 2010 whereby the Division Bench while affirming the order dated 05.08.2010 passed by the learned single Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein.

3. Brief Facts:

(a) In the year 2007, pursuant to the order of the Company Judge, High Court of Orissa, in Companies Act Case No. 25 of 2005, the Official Liquidator, made an advertisement for sale of movable and immovable assets and properties of the Factory Unit of M/s Konark Paper & Industries Limited which was in liquidation on “as is where is and whatever there is” basis.

(b) The sale was confirmed in favour of respondent No.1 – M/s Raghunath Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd., being the highest bidder, and the possession of the Unit was handed over on 28.03.2008. Since there was no power supply, respondent No.1 made an application to the Chief Executive Officer, North Eastern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (in short “ the NESCO”) for restoration of the same. Respondent No. 1 also executed an agreement dated 27.03.2009 with the NESCO for supply of construction power in the Unit. There being no reply from the side of the NESCO, respondent No.1, vide letter dated 26.08.2009, again requested for permanent supply of power. By letter dated 21.05.2010, the NESCO directed respondent No.1 to pay the arrears of electricity dues amounting to Rs. 79,02,262/- outstanding against the premises in question.

(c) Being aggrieved, respondent No.1 filed a petition being Writ Petition (C) No. 9807 of 2010 before the High Court of Orissa praying for quashing of the demand letter dated 21.05.2010 issued by the NESCO with a direction to provide permanent supply of power.

(d) Learned single Judge, by order dated 05.08.2010, after considering various provisions of law governing the issue in question allowed the petition and directed the NESCO to provide electricity to the Unit of respondent No.1 within a period of 7 days from the date of his judgment.

(e) Dissatisfied with the decision of the learned single Judge, the appellants filed Writ Appeal No. 237 of 2010 before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench, by order dated 04.11.2010, finding no illegality in the order of the learned single Judge, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants.

(f) Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellants have preferred this appeal by way of special leave petition before this Court.

4. Heard Mr. Suresh Chandra Tripathy, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for respondent No.1.

5. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether a Company, which purchased the property of another Company under liquidation through auction, is liable to pay the arrears of electricity dues outstanding against the erstwhile Company.

6. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 was the highest bidder and the sale was confirmed in its favour and possession of the Unit was handed over on 28.03.2008 itself. It is further seen that after getting the possession and after finding that there is no supply power in the premises in question, respondent No. 1 made an application for availing the same to the Chief Executive Officer, NESCO. Since there was no reply on their part, respondent No. 1, by letter dated 26.08.2009, again requested for permanent supply of electricity, for which, by letter dated 21.05.2010, the NESCO directed respondent No. 1 to pay the arrears of electricity dues amounting to Rs. 79,02,262/- outstanding against the premises which was purchased in auction through Official Liquidator. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No. 1 challenged the said demand order before the High Court. Learned single Judge, with reference to various guidelines/rules applicable, quashed the demand order dated 21.05.2010 and the Division Bench also affirmed the same wh











































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