( 1 ) THE dispute in this appeal relates to the rate at which the electricity was to be supplied to the respondent In respect of the street lights and water works motors. The facts according to the plaintiffs are that formerly there was a company which was known as Wadhwan State Electric Power Distributing Company and it held a licence under Indian Electricity Act for supplying electric energy within the limits of Wadhwan City. The respondent Municipality entered into agreements with the said Company for the supply of electric energy to its water works motors as well as street lights. The agreements with respect to supply electric energy to water works and the street lights were entered on September 28 1943 The said Company was a partnership firm of which the former Wadhwan State and one Natvarlal Dhanjibhai Mehta were partners. On the integration of the former Wadhwan State and the formation of United State of Saurashtra the State of Saurashtra became a partner in the said Company. The Zalawad Electric Power Supply Company who is the appellant in this case purchased the said Wadhwan State Electric Power Distributing Company in the year 1950. According to the plaintiff the appellant company had purchased all the rights and obligations of Wadhwan State Electric Power Distribution Company. After the date of the purchase the Wadhwan State Electric Power Distributing Company ceased functioning and the appellant company continued to supply electric energy to consumers including the respondent municipality. Some time in the month of May 1952 the appellant company published revised charges for the supply of energy and thereby increasing the rate at which the energy was supplied to the consumers. The respondent municipality objected to the proposed revised charges. There was correspondence between the parties and the appellant company assured the respondent municipality that the agreements under which the electricity was supplied to the respondent municipality were not affected by fixation of revised charges and the energy would be supplied to the respondent municipality according to the terms and conditions of the said agreements. It seems that there was some dispute between consumers and the appellant company with regard to the revised rates and the dispute was referred to arbitrators. The arbitrators did not not agree and therefore the dispute was referred to the sarpanch or umpire for settlement. The umpire fixed the rates of the supply of the electric energy by his sward dated September 3 1952 Thereafter the appellant company issued a public notice informing the consumers of the rates at which the electric energy was to be supplied by them to the consumers. The rates mentioned in the public notice were the rates fixed by the umpire In his award dated September 3 1952 The appellant company forwarded a copy of the award to the Municipality by their letter dated October 8 1952 From August 1952 the appellant company started tendering bills to the municipality for the energy supplied for running the water work motors at the rate fixed by the arbitrator. The appellant company addressed a letter dated August 30 1956 informing the respondent municipality that from November 1 1956 the rates of the electricity for the street lights would be at the revised rates i. e as. 5 per unit. The appellant company started tendering to the municipality the bills at this revised rate from November 1 1956 The respondent municipality refused to pay the higher rates for the electrical energy and therefore the appellant company made frequent demands for the payment. The respondent municipality rejected those demands and continued to pay at the rates fixed under the agreements. The appellant company therefore gave a notice to the municipality dated April 9 1957 under sec. 24 of of the Electricity Act 1910 to cut off the supply of electricity from April 26 1957 as the municipality had committed a default in payment of the bills preferred by th