Back
1988 Supreme(Kar) 538
Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Electricity Board - Appellant
Versus
Ashok Iron Works Pvt.Ltd. - Respondent
Decided On : 12-14-88
C.R.P. : 4622 of 1988
S.G.SUNDARA SWAMY, SHIVARAJ PATIL
The principle of balance of convenience and the need to protect the defendant's interest by imposing suitable conditions for temporary injunction.
Headnote:
Electricity Theft - Temporary Injunction - Karnataka Electricity board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1976 - Section 5 - Regulation 41 - Balance of Convenience
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit seeking a declaration that a bill issued by the petitioners for alleged theft of electrical energy was illegal and sought a temporary injunction against the recovery of the amount and restoration of electrical supply. The trial court and lower appellate court granted the temporary injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was maintainable, accepted the plaintiff's case regarding the alleged explosion, and considered the balance of convenience in granting the temporary injunction.
Issues: Maintainability of the suit, alleged theft of energy, and imposition of conditions for temporary injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of balance of convenience in granting the temporary injunction and emphasized the need to protect the defendant's interest by imposing suitable conditions.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, directing the plaintiff to furnish a bank guarantee or acceptable security for a specified sum within eight weeks, failing which the temporary injunction would stand vacated.
( 1 ) RESPONDENT herein filed a suit for a declaration that the Bill dated 12-2-1988 issued by the petitioners is illegal, invalid and ultra vires and as such not binding on the plaintiff. Suit seeks a restraint on the 2nd defendant from recovering the said amount and also seeks restoration of the electric installation etc. In the suit an Interim Application was filed for an order of temporary injunction against the recovery of the amount stated in pursuance of the impugned bill and for a direction to restore the supply of electrical energy to the plaintiff.
( 2 ) THE demand under challenge is in respect of Rs. 12,17,992. 50, allegedly caused by the theft of electrical energy by the plaintiff. The allegation of theft is seriously denied by the plaintiff and according to the plaintiff the meter itself was defective and the explosion caused at the installation, when complained of, resulted in the impugned demand being sent by the 2nd defendant; electric supply was also cut off, at the same time. It is unnecessary to state more, in detail, of the respective contentions. The trial Court granted the prayer of the plaintiff for an order of temporary injunction and the said order was affirmed by the lower appellate Court.
( 3 ) SRI Sundaraswamy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that, (a) the suit itself was not maintainable, because, (i) the plaintiff has the ample remedy of a departmental appeal under Regulation 41 of the Electricity Supply regulations against the impugned demand; (ii) as per Section 5 of the Karnataka Electricity board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'), before filing any suit, entire amount demanded has to be deposited with the prescribed authority; (b) the theft of energy by the plaintiff was admitted, as is clear from the mahazar drawn on 11-2-1988; (c) an unconditional order of temporary injunction, without any terms being imposed on the plaintiff, is contrary to the well established principles governing the making of an order of temporary injunction.
( 4 ) SRI Shivaraj Patil, learned Counsel for therespondent, brought to my notice the order of this Court in CRP No. 1134 of 1988 decided on 3-10-1988 (1989 (1) Kar. L. J. 306) wherein the suit in question was held maintainable. This order of Chandrakantharaj Urs, J. , is between the same parties and is in respect of the same suit and hence it will be inappropriate for me to consider the contention (a) of Sri Sundaraswamy.
( 5 ) THE trial Court proceeded to accept the plaintiffs case regarding the explosion, alleged to have occurred on 11-2-1988 and this finding was accepted by the lower appellate Court. Sri sundaraswamy, however, referred to the mahazar referred to above, to contend that, admission of theft of the energy by the plaintiff was found in the mahazar duly signed on behalf of the plaintiff and therefore, discussion on other aspects of the case becomes irrelevant at this juncture. I have perused the copy of the said mahazar. I refrain from expressing a definite opinion, since, it may affect the respective cases of the parties, at the trial of the suit.
( 6 ) REGARDING the contention (c), Sri Shivaraj Patil pointed out that the Courts below considered this aspect and having regard to the circumstances of the case, Courts below found it just not to impose any condition on the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court has given two reasons in this regard: (i) the amount demanded being quite heavy and if the plaintiff is compelled to deposit it or furnish security for it, it would be imposing an unreasonable burden on the plaintiff, and (ii) admittedly a security deposit of rupees nine lakhs has been furnished by the plaintiff towards the electrical installation, and that the plaintiff is running a factory and has valuable machineries, etc. which will be sufficient to enable the recovery of the amount demanded in case the suit falls.
( 7 ) IN the course of arguments, it was brought to my notice the security fur
