SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 17

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



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rana
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajadhyaksha

The court upheld the Electricity Board's right to charge a minimum demand despite circumstances limiting actual consumption, affirming the principles of reasonableness and fairness under statutory obligations.

Headnote:(A) Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 - Sections 46 and 49 - Tariff disputes - Whether the Board is entitled to demand charges based on contract demand during circumstances such as lock-out or power cuts - The court held that minimum demand charges are justified even when actual consumption is lower due to circumstances beyond control. (Paras 1, 4, 12, 14)

(B) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 19 - Fairness of tariffs - The conditions of supply by the Board were found reasonable and fair, not arbitrary in context to force majeure claims. (Paras 4, 9, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners contested charges when unable to utilize their contract demand due to a declared lock-out and requested a waiver or reduction based on their actual consumption, which the Board denied, asserting a minimum billing demand rule.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the Board’s insistence on minimum demand charges is a reasonable requirement to sustain economic viability and maintain service readiness for consumers.

Issues: The essential questions involved the fairness of the tariff conditions under the Electricity (Supply) Act and the constitutional provisions surrounding such tariffs.

Ratio Decidendi: The requirements for sustaining service provision justified the demand charges, establishing that contractual obligations hold even under certain constraints such as lock-outs and power cuts.

Result: Petition dismissed.

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

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top