1978 Supreme(Bom) 12

Bombay High Court
KANTAWALA,DESAI
Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing - Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay - Respondent
Decided On : 02/13/1978

The word 'due' in Section 24 of the Electricity Act includes time-barred debts.

Headnote:

ELECTRICITY ACT - SECTION 24 - DISCONTINUANCE OF SUPPLY TO CONSUMER NEGLECTING TO PAY CHARGE - INTERPRETATION - 'NEGLECTS TO PAY' - 'DUE' - MEANING AND SCOPE - WHETHER INCLUDES TIME-BARRED DEBTS - WHETHER ELECTRICITY UNDERTAKING CAN DISCONNECT SUPPLY FOR NON-PAYMENT OF TIME-BARRED DEBTS - HELD, NO - ELECTRICITY UNDERTAKING CANNOT DISCONNECT SUPPLY FOR NON-PAYMENT OF TIME-BARRED DEBTS.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants, manufacturers of barrels and drums, consumed electricity supplied by the B.E.S.T. Undertaking owned by the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent was an Officer of the B.E.S.T. Undertaking at the relevant time. The appellants filed a petition for an appropriate writ, order or direction requiring the respondents to withdraw or cancel the notice dated 31st Oct. 1972, by which it was threatened that the electric supply of the petitioners would be disconnected on account of non-payment of the sum of Rs. 3,30,853.68 mentioned is the said notice. The appellants claimed that they were not aware of the replacement of the meter. They further contended that the threat to discontinue supply was uncalled for. The appellants sought time and facility to check the calculations made by the B.E.S.T. Undertaking and to confirm the amounts claimed. It was also pointed out that the appellants had based their costing on the electricity bills sent by the B.E.S.T. Undertaking which had been duly paid and they would not be entitled to recover the supplementary fabrication charges from their customers, which would entail great loss. The B.E.S.T. Undertaking sent a detailed reply by their letter dated 13th July 1972 in which the facts set out earlier in this judgment were briefly and chronologically indicated. This was followed by a reminder dated 25th Aug. 1972. By their letter dated 4th Sept. 1972 the appellants mentioned that they were unable to check up their earlier records in view of the unsettled labour conditions at their factory and promised to check up the past records as soon as possible and write to the Undertaking further thereafter. Ultimately on 31st Oct. 1972 the B.E.S.T. Undertaking sent to the appellants the notice which had been impugned in the petition pointing out that the amount claimed viz. Rs. 3,30,853-68 had not been received and calling upon the appellants to pay the same within seven days, failing which it was stated that the Undertaking would be constrained to disconnect the appellants' electricity supply for non-payment of the dues. By the said letter it was further mentioned that in case the appellants raised any dispute, the amount could be deposited either with the B.E.S.T. Undertaking or with the Electrical Inspector to the Government of Maharashtra. By their letter dated 3rd Nov. 1972 the appellants characterised the claim of the B.E.S.T. Undertaking as false. They repeated the earlier contentions raised by them in their letter of 31st May 1972 and described the Undertaking' s letter dated 13th July 1972 as alleging various irrelevant facts. As regards the amount claimed for the period 1961 to 1972 it was contended that the claim would be barred by the law of limitation. It was further mentioned that the appellants were disputing the claim of the Undertaking bona fide and therefore the electricity supply of the appellants could not be disconnected under the provisions of S. 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as "the Electricity Act" for the sake of brevity). As regards the demand for making a deposit in case there was a dispute, the appellants contended that they had no objection to refer the dispute to the Electrical Inspector under S. 26 of the Electricity Act, but urged further that the Undertaking had no power to call upon the appellants to deposit the sum claimed either with the Undertaking or with the Electrical Inspector. By another letter of the said date addressed by the appellants to the Electrical Inspector, Government of Maharashtra, enclosing a copy of their letter to the B.E.S.T. Undertaking, the appellants demanded that the dispute and the contentions raised by the appellants should be adjudicated by him. In the said letter the dispute referred to was one in respect of the meter reading for the said period viz. 17th April 1961 to 31st Dec. 1971. The contention of the appellants that the whole of the claim was barred by the law of limitation was also brought to the attention of the Electrical Inspector.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the word 'due' in Section 24 of the Electricity Act includes time-barred debts. The Court further held that the electricity undertaking cannot disconnect the supply for non-payment of time-barred debts.

Issues: Whether the word 'due' in Section 24 of the Electricity Act includes time-barred debts.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted the word 'due' in Section 24 of the Electricity Act to mean all moneys owed or payable, even though their recovery may be barred by the law of limitation. The Court held that the scheme of the statutory provisions under consideration as also with commercial honesty warranted the wider meaning to be given to the word 'due' rather than the narrower meaning, as the wider meaning would be more in accord with the scheme of the statutory provisions under consideration as also with commercial honesty.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.