Back
High Court Of Delhi
INNDEV EGINIRS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
DELHI VIDYUT BOARD - Respondent
Decided On : 07/23/2002
Key Points: - The court held that DVB has no right to disconnect or withdraw supply to a consumer for non-clearance of arrears belonging to a different connection, premises, or consumer (!) . - Section 24 of the Electricity Act can be invoked only against the person to whom energy was supplied; liability cannot be transferred to a third party or subsequent purchaser as a condition for supply (!) (!) . - The liability to pay electricity dues rests with the actual consumer; new owners/purchasers cannot be compelled to clear past arrears as a condition for supply, though Board may pursue recovery from the original consumer via appropriate remedies (!) (!) . - The judgment affirms that a purchaser/new user cannot be held liable for arrears of the former occupant unless privity of contract exists; a third party cannot be forced to pay due to lack of contractual relation (!) (!) . - The court set aside the impugned orders transferring arrears and directed not to disconnect at B-6 based on arrears of B-87; emphasizes vigilant, but proper, recovery methods rather than cross-transfer of arrears (!) . - Isha Marbles and Waxpol decisions cited: liability lies with the consumer linked to the supply; commercial/public property cannot be wrongfully transferred to shield due payments (!) (!) .
( 1 ) THE short question raised in this writ petition is as to whether the respondent No. 1, Delhi Vidyut Board can withdraw the supply of electricity to a consumer on account of non-clearance of arrears in respect of a different connection, at a different premises and in the name of a different consumer.
( 2 ) THE facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner company incorporated in the year 1996 is having its factory at B-6, Mayapuri Industrial Area Phase I, New delhi. It gets its electricity supply from K. No. 014-5765296/1s/h0009 which is in the name of previous owner of property. The two Directors of the petitioner Company, namely Dutt Kumar and Sarla Kumar, are the Director of M/s. S. D. Technical Service private Limited also, which was having. its factory at b 87, Mayapuri Industrial Area Phase-I, New Delhi. The electricity supply to the said factory was from K. No. XI 1925. This K. number was in the name of M/s. Ram Prakash Kamal Kishore, the landlords of the premises no. B-87, Mayapuri Industrial Area Phasw I, New Delhi. On account of certain demands raised by Delhi Vidyut board and on account of some disputes between M/s. S. D. Technical Services Private Limited and M/s. Ram prakaeh Kamal Kishore, the demand raided by Delhi Vidyut board in respect of electricity connection at B-87 mayapuri Industrial Area, New Delhi was not cleared which resulted in some legal proceedings. The petitioner company floated by the Directors of m/s. S. D. Technical Services (P) Ltd. started functioning from B 6, Maya Puri, Delhi where an electricity connection was available. However, the respondent Delhi vidyut Board transferred the arrears in respect of the electricity connection at B 87, Mayapuri Industrial Area to K. No. 014 5765296 at B 6, Mayapuri Industrial Area, phase I, New Delhi and disconnected the electricity supply through the said meter. The present writ petition was filed assailing the transfer of the demand to K. number at B-6, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-I, new Delhi Directions were also sought for restoration of the electricity which had been disconnected on account of this demand. By interim orders and subject to certain terms, the electricity to the petitioner s premises was restored by this Court vide orders dated 29. 5. 1998.
( 3 ) THE respondents have filed counter-affidavit challenging the petitioner s prayer for relief pleading that the petitioner Company cannot claim that the petitioner and M/s. S. D. Technical Servicee Private limited are two separate entities and as such the dues payable by M/s. S. D. Technical Servicee Private Limited are payable by the petitioner. It ie pleaded that Shri dutt Kumar, the Director of M/s. S. D. Technical Services private Limited is the Director of the petitioner company also. It is also pleaded that by merely shifting his factory from B-87, Mayapuri Industrial Area phase-I, New Delhi to B-6, Mayapuri Industrial Area phase-I, New Delhi and by floating a new Company under the name of the petitioner Company, the aforesaid Dutt kumar cannot avoid liability incurred in respect of M/s. S. D. Technical Services Private Limited and as such, the respondents were fully justified and legally entitled to transfer the arrears to the electricity connection at b-6, Mayapuri Industrial Area Phase-1, New Delhi so that shri Dutt Kumar who is running his factory at the said premises, Is compelled to clear the arrears. It is submitted that a dishonest consumer cannot be allowed to play truants with the public property and as such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
( 4 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gene through the records of the case.
( 5 ) LEARNED couneel for the petitioner, relying upon a judgement of Supreme Court of India in Isha Marbles and others Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and Another, reported in 1995 (2) SCC 648, has contended that the petitioner Company being a separ
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
