* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl.M.C.3284/2008 Reserved on: 27th October, 2009 % Date of Decision: 25th November, 2009 # BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. ..... Petitioner ! Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr.
Adv. with Mr. Anupam Varma and Mr. Mahit Jolly, Advs.
Versus $ STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents ^ Through: Mr. R.N. Vats, APP for the State, Mr. S.D. Ansari, I. Ahmad and Mr. G.D. Ahmad, Advs. for R-2 + Crl.M.C.3454/2008 # BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. ..... Petitioner ! Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr.
Adv. with Mr. Anupam Varma and Mr. Mahit Jolly, Advs.
Versus $ STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents ^ Through: Mr. R.N. Vats, APP for the State, Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Adv. for R-2 + Crl.M.C.3455/2008 # BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. ..... Petitioner ! Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr.
Adv. with Mr. Anupam Varma and Mr. Mahit Jolly, Advs.
Versus $ STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents ^ Through: Mr. R.N. Vats, APP for the State.
+ Crl.M.C.3456/2008 # BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. ..... Petitioner ! Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr.
Adv. with Mr. Anupam Varma and Mr. Mahit Jolly, Advs.
Versus $ STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents ^ Through: Mr. R.N. Vats, APP for the State, Mr. V.K. Goel, Adv. for R-2 + Crl.M.C.3453/2008 # BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. ..... Petitioner ! Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr.
Adv. with Mr. Anupam Varma and Mr. Mahit Jolly, Advs.
Versus $ STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents ^ Through: Mr. R.N. Vats, APP for the State, Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Adv. for R-2 * CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
11. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
22. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
33. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes :
V.K. JAIN, J.
1. These are five petitions under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, involving the same question of law Complaints under Section 135 of Electricity Act was filed by petitioner-BSES Rajdhani Power Limited in all these cases, alleging theft of electricity by the respondents. Besides seeking trial and punishment of the respondents, the petitioner also made a prayer to the Special Court to determine the civil liability in terms of Section 154(5) of Electricity Act.
2. An application was filed by the respondents under Section 154(5) of Electricity Act read with Section 7 of Court Fee Act for directing the complainant to pay ad valorem Court fee on the amount claimed by it. The Special Court held that the petitioner/complainant was bound to pay Court fee under Section 7(1) of Court Fee Act, on the amount which it was claiming as the civil liability. He accordingly directed the complainant/petitioner to pay ad valorem on the amount for which bill was raised by it against the respondents.
3. Section 154(5) of Electricity Act, 2003 reads as under:
“(5) The 1 [Special Court shall] determine the civil liability against a consumer or a person in terms of money for theft of energy which shall not be less than an amount equivalent to two times of the tariff rate applicable for a period of twelve months preceding the date of detection of theft of energy or the exact period of theft if determined whichever is less and the amount of civil liability so determined shall be recovered as if it were a decree of civil court.”
4. In support of his contention that no Court fee is payable on such a request contained in the complaint filed before the Special Court, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the interpretation given by Supreme Court to similar provision contained in State Financial Corporations Act, 1951.
Section 31 of that Act, to the extent it is relevant, provides as under:
“31. (1) Where an industrial concern, in breach of any agreement, makes any default in repayment of any loan or advance or any instalment thereof or in meeting its obligations in relation to any guarantee given by the Corporation or otherwise fails to comply with the terms of its agreement with the Financial Corporation or where the Financial Corporation requires an industrial concern to make immediate repayment of any loan or advance under Section 30 and the industrial concern fails to make such repayment, then, without prejudice to the provisions of Section 29 of this Act and of Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, any officer of the Financial Corporation, generally or specially authorised by the Board in this behalf, may apply to the district judge within the limits of whose jurisdiction the industrial concern carries on the whole or a substantial part of its business for one or more of the following reliefs, namely :-
(a) for an order for the sale of the property pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned to the Financial Corporation as security for the loan or advance; or
(2) An application under Sub-section (1) shall state the nature and extent of the liability of the industrial concern to the Financial Corporation, the ground on which it is made and such other particulars as may be prescribed.”
5. Section 32 of the Act prescribes the procedure of District Judge in respect of the applications under Sections 31. To the extent it is relevant, it reads as under:
“(5) If no cause is shown on or before the date specified in the notice under sub- sections (2) and (4), the District Judge shall forthwith make the ad interim order absolute and direct the sale of attached property or transfer the management of the industrial concern to the Financial Corporation or confirm the injunction.
(6) If cause is shown, the District Judge shall proceed to investigate the claim of the Financial Corporation in accordance with the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in so far as such provisions may be applied t
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.