High Court Of Delhi
METAL FORGINGS PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI - Respondent
Decided On : 10/23/1998
ARBITRATION - ELECTRICITY ACT, 1910 - SECTION 25 - DISPUTES RELATING TO PAYMENT OF DAMAGES, FUEL ADJUSTMENT CHARGES, AND INTERPRETATION OF TARIFF ARE NOT REFERABLE TO ARBITRATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an industrial consumer of electricity, disputed its liability to pay for electricity consumed and claimed compensation for losses suffered. The petitioner requested arbitration of the disputes under Clause 25 of the agreement with the respondents, the electricity supplier. The respondents contested the petition, arguing that the disputes were not arbitrable.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the disputes relating to payment of damages, fuel adjustment charges, and interpretation of tariff were not referable to arbitration. The court relied on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedents holding that such disputes were not covered by the Arbitration Act, 1940.
Issues: Whether the disputes relating to payment of damages, fuel adjustment charges, and interpretation of tariff were referable to arbitration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that disputes relating to payment of damages were not arbitrable as they were not covered by any of the sections of the Arbitration Act dealing with arbitration. The court also held that disputes relating to fuel adjustment charges were not arbitrable as they were to be finally decided after raising of demand by the electricity supplier. The court further held that disputes relating to interpretation of tariff were not arbitrable as the tariff was statutory and its interpretation could not be left to an arbitrator.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no dispute raised in the petition which was capable of being referred to arbitration.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed by the petitioner seeking to refer the disputes, as mentioned in paragraph No. 27 of the petition, for adjudication through the process of arbitration in terms of Clause 25 of the agreement between the parties.
( 2 ). The petitioner had three separate electric connections for industrial use and lighting in the three premises belonging to the petitioner obtained from the respondents under regular agreement with the respondents. The respondents issued various bills to the petitioner for the electricity consumed but the petitioner disputed and denied its liability to pay for electricity consumed, as charged, and claimed compensation for the losses suffered by it. According to the petitioner, thus disputes and differences have arisen between the parties on the aforesaid account. The petitioner requested the respondents from time to time to settle the disputes and differences through the process of arbitration in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties being Clause 25 of the aforesaid agreement. Since the respondent has failed to eccede to the request, accordingly, this petition has been filed.
( 3 ). The petitioner filed several petitions in this Court, details of which are set out in paragraph 14 of the petition, in respect of the aforesaid disputes and differences relating to separate bills. It would appear therefrom that in respect of the bills raised by the respondents w. e. f. 25th June, 1984 till the bill raised for the month of September, 1985, the petitioner sought reference of the disputes to arbitration in terms of aforesaid Clause 25. Even subsequent thereto, the petitioner was served with three bills demanding balance payment of fuel adjustment charges for the years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 which amounted to a sum of Rs. 25,59,555. 81.
( 4 ). The petitioner disputed its liability to pay the aforesaid amount and accordingly has filed the present petition in this Court for referring of the disputes and differences stated to have been arisen between the parties as set out in paragraph No. 27 of the petition.
( 5 ). The aforesaid petition is contested by the respondents contending, inter alia, that no dispute has arisen between the parties which could be REFERRED TO to arbitration, in view of the fact that the respondents have been charging at all times payment for the electricity consumed by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions contained in the tariff which is fixed by the Corporation in exercise of its statutory powers. Exercise of such powers, according to the respondents, cannot be the subject matter of arbitration.
( 6 ). I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as also Counsel appearing for the respondents. I have also carefully perused the disputes stated to have been arisen between the parties which are set out in paragraph No. 27 of the petition.
( 7 ). The disputes raised in paragraph Nos. 27 (a) and (d) relate to payment of damages. My attention is drawn to the decision of Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board v. Bassi Cold Storage, Khera reported in AIR 1994 SC 2544. In the said decision the Supreme Court has held that disputes as to damages payable for disconnection cannot be subject-matter of arbitration being not covered by any of the sections of the Act dealing with arbitration. The Supreme Court held that as such though the dispute about damages payable would have been referable to arbitration because of what has been provided in Condition 29, it cannot be done and that the provision in the Act would override the stipulation contained in the aforesaid Condition.
( 8 ). In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, in my considered opinion, the disputes relating to payment of damages as raised by the petitioner as aforesaid in the present case cannot be REFERRED TO to the arbitration.
( 9 ). Claims as raised in paragraphs 27 (b), (f) and (g) relate to fuel adjustment charges. A Division Bench of this
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.