BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Not mentioned, Not mentioned
The Century Textiles and Industries Limited – Appellant
Versus
Maharashtra State Electricity Board – Respondent
W. P. No. 1917 of 1982
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner disputes tariff based on unutilized demand under lock-out. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. board's tariff regulations respond to the need for economic viability. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments center on fairness and legality of demand charges during circumstances beyond control. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. justification of minimum charges reinforced by earlier legal precedents. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. final ruling affirms board's billing practices as lawful. (Para 16 , 17) |
1. Petitioner No. 1 - The Century Textiles and Industries Limited - is a company and petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder of the company. The issue raised in the petition is as to whether the Maharashtra State Electricity Board is entitled to charge for supply of electrical energy in accordance with the tariff for the supply of electricity at high tension in accordance with the provisions of clause 1 entitled "Minimum Bill" at the rate of 75% of the contract demand even when no demand is registered or the actual demand registered is much less than 75% of the contract demand owing to the circumstances beyond the control of the company like strike, lock - out etc.
2. Prior to 1st July, 1980, the company was receiving electrical energy at its divisions known as "Century Rayon, Rayon Division, Century Rayon Tyre Cord Division and Century Chemicals Divisions" situate at Shahad, Dist. Thane, from the Tata Electric Supply Company Ltd. As and from the midnight of 30th June / 1st July 1980, the supply of electrical energy to certain areas which was being supplied by the Tata Electric Supply Company Ltd. was taken over by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board by a public notice dated 26th May, 1980. The terms and conditions under which the Maharashtra State Electricity Board supplied electrical energy were contained in the "Conditions and Miscellaneous Charges for supply of Electrical Energy." Those conditions were effective from 1st January, 1976. It further appears that respondent No. 1 framed tariffs under S.49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act , 1948. Under clause v(2) of the Tariff, "Contract Demand" is defined as follows: -
"Contract Demand means the maximum KW / KVA for the supply of which the Board undertakes to provide facilities from time to time. "
Under clause v (4) of the Tariff, "Billing Demand" is defined as follows: -
"Billing Demand" means the demand used for billing purposes and computed as the highest of the following:
(i) the maximum demand established during month as defined above;
(ii) 75% of the Contract Demand as defined above;
(iii) 50 KVA, or such other lower figures as may be approved by the Chief Engineer in the case of the licencees ........"
The contract demand in the case of petitioner No. 1 during the relevant period was fixed at 27,750 KVA. During the relevant period, there was power cut of 221/2% imposed by the State of Maharashtra and thereby the contract demand was reduced to 21,080 KVA.
3. It is asserted by the petitioners that on or about 30th April, 1982 the management of the company was forced to declare a lock - out at the company's aforesaid divisions. Consequently, the company was not able to utilise its normal contract demand quota as the manufacturing activities at the aforesaid divisions came to a standstill. The actual demand registered by the company from 30th April, 1982 onwards was reduced to approx. 2000 KVA. The company requested the Board to waive its demand charges for the unutilised demand during the lock - out period and to charge it for the actual demand registered by it. The respondents rejected the said request of the company. The respondent Board informed that there is no provision under the Tariff for waiver of demand charges. By further letter dated 14-06-1982 the company pointed out that there was a power cut of 221/2% and the company was not in a position to utilise its contracted demand and the Board could profitably divert the unutilised demand to other units and, as such, no loss would be caused to the Board
M/s. Northern India Iron and Steel Co. v. State of Haryana
Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. Brojo Nath
Amalgamate Electricity Company v. Jalgaon Municipality
Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna v. M/s. Green Rubber Industries
General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, B.S.E.B. v. Rajeshwar Singh
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.