LexM/S ISHA MARBLES ETC. ETC. versus BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
M/S ISHA MARBLES ETC. ETC. v. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. ETC. ETC. FEBRUARY 3, 1995 [P.B. SAWANT, S. MOHAN AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] A B Electricity Act, 1910-Sections 2(c), 22, 24, clause VI of Schedule; Rule 2A(f)-Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948-Section 26-A"ears of consumption charges in respect of electricity supplied to premises-Failure of consumer to C pay-Remedies of Electricity Board-Liability of transfere(J. The appellant was a purchaser of the mortgaged assets of an in- dustry in an open auction 'sale held by the Bihar State Financial Corpora- tion. The appellant paid a substantial sum towards the said transaction and thereafter got the possession of th~ industry. However, the electrical D connection of the premises was disconnected. The appellant was called upon to discharge all the liabilities ot the previous consumer. This was challenged in the writ petition on the' ground that there was a transfer of a unit and as transferee it was not liable for energy consumed before such transfer. The writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court holding that the Bihar State Electricity Board would be entitled to E take action in accordance with law. T,hese appeals had been filed against the judgment of the High Court. The appellants urged that the appella]lt m., the bonafide purchaser of the mortgaged assets of the industry in an auction sale held under the F Corporation Act by the respondent - Corpor~fon; that the appellant was neither the transferee nor the successor to the previous owner of the premises, it was an independent buyer under ~he }Uhar Public Demands Recovery (Amendment) Act, 1982; that the dues towards the consumption of electricity could be recovered only if the appellant was· a consumer and G he could not be held to be a consumer since, factually, the appellant was yet to be given electricity connection; that the electricity dues by the previous industry was a contractual liability between the industry and the respondent Board, it was not statutory in nature since electricity was consumed by consumer on the basis of a written contract approved J>Y I Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910; that Section 24 of the H 847 848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R. A Electricity Act had no application since that presupposes an electricity connection which connection the appellant was yet to be given, therefore, the appellant could not be held liable for any default committed by the previous consumer; that neither under the scheme of the Electricity Act nor the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948, was there any concept of the B premises of the consumer being liable for the electricity dues de hors the consumer, whose premises it was; that though by reason of the amendment made on 18.4.1982 to the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 electricity dues were recoverable by bringing the property of the consumer concerned to sale in certificate proceedings, such a provision could not be invoked against a subsequent bonafide auction purchaser of C the assets; that in so far as this appellant had not consumed electricity, it was merely seeking re-connection and there being no statutory dues towards consumption charges, the Board could not insist upon the respon· dent to pay the arrears owing by the erstwhile consumer, as a condition precedent to provide electricity connection, on the contrary, there· was an D obligation u/s 3(2)(t) and Section 22 of the Electricity Act read with clause VI of the Schedule I thereof to supply electricity; that the auction notice issued by the Corporation or even the subsequent transfer by it, did not mention anything about the outstanding electricity dues and therefore, the liability of the previous consumer could not be fastened to this appellant. E On behalf of the Board, it was urged that the Board, after giving notice u/s 24 . of the Electricity Act to the previous consumer for not ·receiving payment towards electricity bills in respect of the premises, had disconnected/cut off the supply to the premises and that premises was sold in auction by the corporation to the appellant; that Section 2.f confers a F statutory right to the Board to cut off the supply and this right is without prejudice to the right of the Board to file a suit and, therefore, the Board need not necessarily file a suit and when the Board had exercised its statutory right u/s 24 it could not be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.