Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. Mukharji
ASSOCIATED POWER CO LTD - Appellant
Versus
RAM TARAN ROY - Respondent
. Of .
Decided On : January 13, 1969
JURISDICTION - CITY CIVIL COURT ACT - INTERPRETATION OF 'GOODS' - ELECTRICITY AS GOODS - SALE OF GOODS ACT - DEFINITION OF GOODS - APPLICABILITY TO ELECTRICITY - JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES - BROAD CONNOTATION OF GENERAL EXPRESSIONS - COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS - SALE OF ELECTRICITY AS GOODS - AGREEMENT FOR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AS A MERCANTILE DOCUMENT - ENGLISH AUTHORITIES - DISTINCTION FROM INDIAN LAW.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, Associated Power Co. Ltd., sued Ram Taran Roy, carrying on business under the name and style of Roy Dutta and Co., for the recovery of Rs. 7460.06 P as the price for the supply of electrical energy. The defendant admitted all facts pleaded in the plaint except for the issue of whether the City Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit, arguing that electricity was not 'goods' within the meaning of the City Civil Court Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that electricity is 'goods' within the meaning of clause 4 (iv) of the First Schedule of the City Civil Court Act and that the court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The court relied on the definition of 'goods' in Section 2 (7) of the Indian Sale of Goods Act, which includes 'every kind of movable property other than actionable claims and money'. The court also considered judicial precedents, both in India and England, and concluded that there was no authority to support the proposition that electricity cannot be goods.
Issues: Whether electricity is 'goods' within the meaning of clause 4 (iv) of the First Schedule of the City Civil Court Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that electricity is 'goods' within the meaning of clause 4 (iv) of the First Schedule of the City Civil Court Act based on the following grounds: * The definition of 'goods' in Section 2 (7) of the Indian Sale of Goods Act includes 'every kind of movable property other than actionable claims and money'. * Judicial precedents in India and England support the view that electricity can be considered 'goods'. * The scheme of jurisdiction as distributed between the City Civil Court and the High Court, and the object of the City Civil Court Act to relieve pressure on the Original Side of the High Court, indicate that the word 'goods' in clause 4 (iv) of the First Schedule should be interpreted in a broad and plain sense. * The agreement for electric supply in the case is a 'mercantile document' within the meaning of clause 4 (iv) of the First Schedule of the City Civil Court Act.
Final Decision: The court held that the City Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit and decreed the amount claimed with interim interest and interest on judgment at 6 percent per annum and costs.
( 1 ) IN this Commercial Cause, the plaintiff Co. Associated Power Co. Ltd. is suing Ram Taran Roy, carrying on business under the name and style of Roy Dutta and Co. for the recovery of Rs. 7460. 06 P as the price for the supply of electrical energy.
( 2 ) THERE were a number of points raised in the Written Statement but the issues have now been considerably narrowed, in the circumstances, I am just about to mention. Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel for the defendant, raised only the following issue: "has this Court jurisdiction to try this suit on the ground that this is a suit not for goods supplied for electricity consumed?"
( 3 ) MR. Sinha, appearing for the defendant, abandoned all other contentions raised in the Written Statement and subject to the above issue, he admitted all other facts pleaded in the plaint. It is also to be recorded that Mr. Sinha for the defendant does not contest either the content or the amounts and figures pleaded in the plaint.
( 4 ) THE only question for decision now in this suit is to determine the point whether electricity is within the meaning of 'goods" used in Cl. 4 (iv) of the First Schedule of the City Civil Court Act, 1953. In other words, the main contention is that it is the City Civil Court only which was jurisdiction to try this suit and not the Original Side of this High Court. Cl. 4 (iv) of the First Schedule of the City Civil Court Act, inter alia, reads as follows: -"subject to entry 1 and entry 2, suits and proceedings exceeding five thousand rupees in value - ***arising out of transactions of merchants and traders relating to the buying or the selling of goods or relating to the construction of mercantile documents. "
( 5 ) IT may be recorded here that by a written agreement dated 30. 7. 57 the plaintiff agreed to supply and the defendant agreed to take electrical energy to be used by the defendant in the defendant's colliery at Kajoragram in the district of Burdwan. The overriding consideration in this agreement is that it is a purely commercial transaction for supply of electricity to a colliery.
( 6 ) S. 5 (ii) of the City Civil Court Act provides that "subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3), (4) and of Sec. 9, the Civil Court shall have jurisdiction and the High Court shall not have jurisdiction to try suits and proceedings of a civil nature, not exceeding ten thousand rupees in value. "
( 7 ) IT is contended by Mr. Sinha that as the claim is only for Rs. 7460. 06 P. the proper Court with proper jurisdiction was the Civil Court in this case. In answer, Mr. Goho, learned Counsel for the plaintiff, relied on Cl. 4 (iv) of the First Schedule of the City Civil Court Act as quoted above to say that this Court has jurisdiction as it is a suit exceeding Rs. 5000/ -. The legal debate has centred lastly round the meaning of the word "goods" in Cl. 4 (iv) of the First Schedule of the Civil Court Act. According to Mr. Goho, learned Counsel for the plaintiff, electricity is "goods" and according to Mr. Sinha, Counsel for the defendant, it is not "goods" within the meaning of that clause in the City Civil Court Act.
( 8 ) I shall now briefly examine the different arguments advanced by Mr. Sinha, appearing for the defendant. His first argument naturally is that the word "goods" in its ordinary and common connotation, cannot and should not include something like electricity which is not tangible and just only current or energy. If the distinction that this argument tries to make is between matter and energy then perhaps the answer in modern science of physics will be that matter is energy and energy is matter and therefore electricity according to the modern notions of physics can very well come within the expression "goods".
( 9 ) MR. Sinha, thereafter relied on the State list, being list 2 of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India, items 53 and 54 where the following expressions occur: -"53.- Taxes on the consumption or sale of electricity. " and "54.-
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
