( 1 ) TWO questions as regard interpretation of the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short the 1910 Act ) vis-a-vis condition Nos. 22. 1. 2 and 22. 2. 3 in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Punjab S. E. B. v. Ludhiana Steels Pvt. Ltd. , (1993) 1 SCC 205 have been referred to this Bench by a Division Bench (Coram : Bilal Nazki and E. Dharma Rao, JJ.) which are :1. Whether from the judgment of Supreme Court referred to above (Punjab State Electricity Board v. Ludhiana Steels Pvt. Ltd. (supra) it can be inferred that the Supreme Court has laid down the law that the words "in the absence of any agreement to the contrary" appearing in sub-section (1) of Section 26 control sub-section (6) of Section 26 as well?2. SINCE the controversy with regard to controlling of sub-section (6) with the words "in the absence of any agreement to the contrary" as found in sub-section (1) of Section 26 was not before the Supreme Court as there was no such agreement between the parties, would the judmgent of the Supreme Court be a binding precedent?

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a public limited company incorporated and registered u