Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - The compendium of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that the petitioner East India Udyog Limited (for brevity “the petitioner-company”) was engaged in manufacturing and repairing of electric transformers. It supplied over 5000 transformers to Haryana State Electricity Board (for short “the HSEB”). It was supposed to rectify the defects during the guarantee period in normal routine. About 50 transformers of complainant Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (in short “the DHBVNL”) (respondent No.2) were found defective/burnt and petitioner-company was required to remove the defects. The estimated cost of these transformers was stated to be Rs.6 lacs.

2. According to the DHBVNL that petitioner-company picked up the indicated defective transformers on 14.12.1998 for repair, which were required to be returned in a working condition within a period of 45 days. The petitionercompany has neither repaired nor returned the transformers within the stipulated period, causing huge loss to it (DHBVNL).

3. Levell