Back
2013 Supreme(Bom) 696
In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
U.V. BAKRE, J.
State of Goa & Others
Versus
Kirit J. Maganlal & Others
First Appeal No. 191 of 2005
Decided on : 22-03-2013
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Contract Law
Act Referred
Headnote
Electricity Department - Liability of Payment - Indian Electricity Act, 1910 - Section 2(c), Section 54 - The judgment discusses the liability of payment for electricity charges under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. It interprets the definition of 'consumer' under Section 2(c) and the provisions related to recovery of dues under Section 54. The court's decision is influenced by the interpretation of the agreement, transfer of rights, and privity of contract, ultimately holding defendant no. 6 liable for the payment of electricity charges.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a director of a company, filed a suit to declare that he is not liable to pay electricity charges and that the order demanding payment is illegal. The plaintiff believed that the electricity connection had been transferred to subsequent owners of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court held that the recovery order against the plaintiff was null and void as the company, not the director, was liable for the dues. It also held that defendant no. 6 was liable to pay the energy charges consumed by them.
Issues: The main issue was the liability of payment for electricity charges and the validity of the recovery order against the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that as per the agreement, the consumer was the company, not the director, making the recovery order against the plaintiff invalid. It also found that defendant no. 6, as the current owner, was liable to pay the electricity charges.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, upholding the nullity of the recovery order against the plaintiff and holding defendant no. 6 liable to pay the electricity charges to the Electricity Department.
For the Appellants:E. Afonso, Government Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, Y.V. Nadkarni, R5, D’Silva, Advocates.
This appeal arises out of the judgment, order and decree dated 18.02.2005 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional District Judge-II, Panaji, (trial Court, for short), in Civil Suit No. 166/2004 (New)/Special Civil Suit No. 31/2002/A (Old ).
2. The parties shall herein after be referred to in the manner in which they appear in the cause title of the said suit.
3. The plaintiff had filed the said suit for declaration that he is not liable to pay the amount of Rs.6,59,047/- as claimed in the notice of the demand dated 18.05.2001, and that the said amount if payable to the Electricity Department, is liable to be paid by defendant no.6 and/or defendants no.7 and 8 jointly and/or severally and that the order of the Mamlatdar and Recovery Officer dated 18.03.2002 is illegal, null and void and without any authority of law and not binding on the plaintiff. By way amendment, an alternative prayer was made by the plaintiff to the effect that in the event the Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is liable to pay the said amount of Rs.6,59,047/- to defendants no.1 to 4 as claimed in the notice of demand dated 18.05.2001, the Court be pleased to pass a decree against defendants no.6, 7 and 8 jointly and/or severally to pay to the plaintiff the said sum of Rs.6,59,047/- as claimed in the notice of demand dated 18.05.2001.
4. Case of the plaintiff in short is as follows:
The plaintiff was a director of M/s K. M. Seafoods (Goa) Pvt. Ltd., and the said company had purchased a landed property bearing survey no. 11/1 at Corlim, Ilhas, Goa, in or about August, 1970 to set up a fish processing unit. As required under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 an agreement dated 05.06.1990 was executed between the State Government of Goa and M/s K. M. Seafoods (Goa) Pvt. Ltd., for supply of 48 H.P. for the purpose of Industrial use. The said agreement was executed by the plaintiff on behalf of M/s K. M. Seafoods (Goa) Pvt. Ltd., as its director. By a Deed of Sale dated 14.11.1991, M/s. K. M. Seafoods (Goa) Pvt. Ltd., sold an area of 2850 square metres out of the total area of 5590 square metres of the landed property under survey no.11/1 of Corlim Village to defendant no. 5 together with old existing building and structures concerning the fish processing unit. Pursuant thereto, defendant no. 5 became the lawful owner in possession of the fish processing unit. By letter dated 05.12.1991, the plaintiff as director of M/s K. M. Seafoods (Goa) Pvt. Ltd., informed the Chief Electrical Engineer, Electricity Department, about the Sale Deed executed with defendant no.5 and requested for transfer of the electrical connection in the name of defendant no.5. The plaintiff bonafidely believed that the said request has been complied with since there could possibly be no objection to such transfer. Subsequently, by a Deed of Sale dated 07.12.1993, defendant no. 5 sold the said portion of 2850 square metres along with existing building and structures concerning the fish processing unit to defendant no. 6, represented by its partner namely defendant no. 8. By a further Deed of Sale dated 17.04.1995, M/s K. M. Seafoods (Goa) Pvt. Ltd., also sold the remaining portion of the suit property admeasuring about 2740 square metres to the said defendant no. 6 represented by its partner namely defendant no.7. In view of the above, defendant no. 6 became the lawful owner in possession of the fish processing unit from 07.12.1993. By a letter dated 29.07.1998, the plaintiff had requested the Assistant Engineer, Electricity Department to delete their name and incorporate the name of defendant no.6 as the consumer. The plaintiff bonafidely believed that this request for transfer must have been complied with as there was no possibility of any objection to such transfer and furthermore no reply was received rejecting the request. However, the plaintiff received the notice of demand No. REV/REC/ELEC-3-2001 dated 18.05.2001 from the Mamlatdar of Tiswad
