Back
1991 Supreme(AP) 147
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : J.ESWARA PRASAD, M.JAGANADHA RAO
Andhra Cement Company Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
A.P. State Electricity Board - Respondent
C M.A. No. 1645/90 etc.
Decided On : 04-04-91
Advocates Appeared :
.
Headnote:SICK INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES (SPECIVIL PROVISIONS) ACT, 1985 - Sec. 22 (1) and Indian Electricity Act, 1910 - Secs. 24 (2) Proviso and 26 [4] and condition 34 of the Conditions for supply of power - Electricity Board has power to disconnect power supply to a Company under rehabilitation or refusing to make additional supply for non-payment of arrears due - Sec. 22 (1) of 1985 Act is not attracted - Amount in dispute before Chief Electrical Inspector - Prohibition against disconnection under Sec. 24[2] Proviso not applicable then notice issued by the Board for deposit of disputed amount and for failure of Company to make such deposit.
Held : A threat of disconnection - Or disconnection of supply of power by the Electricity Board and consequent refusal to make supplies of electricity are not hit by the prohibition contained in Section 22 [1] of the S.I.C. Act, 1985. Sec. 22 contemplates that no proceedings either for winding up or for execution, distress or the -like against any of the properties of the Company or for appointment of a receiver in respect thereof shall lie or be proceeded with and if the Electricity Board, by itself refusing to supply its product namely, electricity in future, it cannot be brought within the prohibition. The proviso to Sec. 24 (2) come into operation the moment the Board issued the statutory notice thereunder and the Company failed to deposit the sums in dispute. Therefore the amount in dispute due to alleged error in the meter should have been paid and the Board is entitled to disconnect the power supply for non-fulfilment of the condition of cash deposit by the Company as .per the proviso to Sec. 24 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
C.M.A. 1545/90 Dismissed C.M.A. 274/91 etc. Allowed
( 1 ) THESE five civil miscellaneous applications are connected and can be disposed of together. Among them, C. M. A. No. 1545 of 1990, 214 of 1991, 223 of 1991 and 224 of 1991 all arise out of interlocutory applications filed by the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 841 of 1990 in the court of the Fifth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereas C. M. A. No. 161 of 1991 arises out of an interlocutory application filed in O. S. No. 2 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge s Court, Narasaraopet.
( 2 ) O. S. No. 841 of 1990 is a suit filed by the Andhra Cement Company Limited against the A. P. Electricity Board [hereinafter called "the Board"] and its officers for a declaration that the defendants are not entitled to take any coercive steps like disconnection of power to the plaintiff s factories at Nadikudi, Vijayawada and Vishakhapatnam, either under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, or under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, or under the conditions of supply, pending the settlement of claims between the plaintiff and the Board and in view of the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies [special Provisions] Act, 1985, and for issue of consequential permanent injunction restraining the Board from disconnecting the power supply to the plaintiff s factories at Nadikudi, Vijayawada and Vishakhapatnam and also from taking any coercive steps for realisation of the amount due as per the notices until the claims between the plaintiff and the defendant are settled, and until prior permission of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction [hereinafter called "the BIFR"] is obtained under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies [special Provisions] Act, 1985 [hereinafter called "the SIC Act, 1985"]. The suit was filed in August, 1990. In I. A. No. 743 of 1990. The plaintiff claimed a temporary injunction against the Board and its officers for restraining them from adopting any coercive measures against the company including disconnection of power for non-payment of instalments falling due on 30/08/1990, as per its demand notices Nos. R/2/a6/2722/90, dated 16/05/1990, R2/a/2705/1990, dated 16/05/1990, REV/ht/d No. 881, dated 23/05/1990, and L. R. No. 4359, dated 9/07/1990, No. 5120, dated 16/08/1990, and No. 1241, dated 23/07/1990, and the bill dated 26/07/1990, in respect of Nadikudi Unit (DCW ). The Fifth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, granted an ad interim injunction on 28/08/1990. I. A. No. 812 of 1990, was filed for a temporary injunction in respect of consumption charges for the month of August, 1990, and the arrears of instalments falling due on 15/09/1990. I. A. No. 859 of 1990 was filed in respect of arrears of consumption charges as well as additional charges due on 30/09/1990, and subsequently as fixed by the demand notices. In I. A. No. 812 of 1990 and 859 of 1990 notices were ordered. Thereafter counters were filed. The learned Fifth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, took up I. A. Nos. 743 of 1990, 812 of 1990 and 859 of 1990 together and passed final orders on 14/11/1990.
( 3 ) IN the I. As. , the court below framed three points for consideration : 1. Whether the petitioner-plaintiffs have shown a prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour; 2. Whether the petitioners/plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss if the relief prayed hereunder is not granted; 3. To what relief.
( 4 ) UNDER point No. 1, it held "for all the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner-company fails in all its fronts to establish prima facie case and balance of convenience" (para 37 ). On point No. 2, the court held "i am of the view that the plaintiff-company is not entitled for grant of a temporary injunction as prayed for" (para 38 ). Under point No. 3, the court dismissed all the three petitions filed by the plaintiff. Thereafter, the lower court referred to certain material relating to the case of the plaintiffs being before the BIFR and observed that, having regard
