HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD versus M/S. HANUMAN RICE MILLS AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 217 · Decided: 20-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 10 S.C.R. 217 
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD 
v. 
MIS. HANUMAN RICE MILLS AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6817 of 2010) 
. AUGUST 20, 2010 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Electricity: Non-payment of electricity bill by previous 
owner/occupier of the premises in regard to the supply of 
electricity to the premises - Liability of subsequent purchaser C 
of the premises to pay such affears - Held: Electricity affears 
do not constitute a charge over the property - Therefore, a 
transferee of a premises cannot be made liable for the dues 
of the previous owner/occupier - However, the electricity 
supplier can demand arrears from subsequent purchaser if D 
the statutory rules or the terms and conditions of supply which 
are statutory in character, authorize it to make such demand. 
Res judicata: First suit filed for permanent injunction for 
restraining the electricity Board from enforcing the demand 
E 
notice, dismi~sed - Second suit fJJed for declaration that the 
demand and the disconnection were invalid - Held: The 
second suit was not barred by the principle of res judicata 
since the matter that was directly and substantially in issue 
in the second suit was completely different from the matter that 
was directly and substantially in issue in the first suit and the 
F 
reliefs claimed were also different - Doctrine/Principle. 
The first respondent purchased a rice mill in an 
auction. When the mill was purchased, the electricity 
supplied to it was already disconnected due to non-
G 
payment of electricity bill. After taking the possession of 
the mill, the first respondent applied for and obtained the 
electricity connection in its own name in the year 1991. 
Four years later, the appellant-Electricity Board served 
217 
H 
218 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 
A upon the first respondent a demand notice dated 
16.1.1995 towards electricity arrears due from the 
previous owner. 
The first respondent filed a suit for permanent 
8 injunction for restraining the appellant-Board from 
enforcing the .demand notice. The suit was dismissed. 
The appellate court upheld the order of dismissal. 
Thereafter, the appellant served a notice dated 2.3.1998 
informing the first respondent that the electricity supply 
would be disconnected if the arrears due from the 
C previous owner were not paid. Thereafter the electricity 
supplied was disconnected on 9.3.1998. 
The first respondent filed a suit challenging the 
demand and disconnection of electricity supplied. The 
D said suit was dismissed by the ·trial court holding that the 
claim of the appellant was barred by limitation. Both the 
first respondentand the appellant filed appeals. The first 
appellate court while dismissing. the appeal filed by the 
appellant and allowing the appeal filed by the first 
E respondent held that-the first respondent could not be 
made liable for the dues of the previous owner, as there 
was no provision in the terms and conditions of sale that 
the electricity dues of the p,revious owner should be paid 
by the first. respondent as auction purchaser. The 
F appellant filed an appeal before the High Court. The High, 
Court dismissed the appeal holdii:-g that in view of the 
decision in lsha Marbles case, the liability of a consumer 
to pay charges for consumption of electricity cannot be 
fastened on ;a subsequent auction purchaser of the: 
G prop·erty. 
H 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the 
dismissal of the first suit filed by the first respondent for 
permanent injunction having attained finality, the second 
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. 
219 
.. 
HANUMAN RICE MILLS 
suit filed by the first respondent for a declaration that 
A 
demand· and disconnection were invalid, was barred by 
the principles of res judicata, and that the decision in *lsha 
Marbles relied on by the High Court was inapplicable to 
the facts of the case. 
· 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The first suit by the first respondent was 
8 
for a permanent injunction to restrain the appellant Board 
from enforcing the demand notice dated 16.1.1995 in 
respect of the electricity consumption charges incurred 
C 
by the previous owner. By the second suit, the first 
respondent sought a declaration that the notice dated 
9.3.1998 threatening disconnection. of electricity supply 
for non-payment of the arrears of the previous owner and 
the consequential disconnection dated 2.3;'1998, were 
D 
invalid and for consequen

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.