MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI versus AJANTA IRON & STEEL CO. (PVT.) LTD.

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 733 · Decided: 28-02-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI 
v. 
AJANTA IRON & STEEL CO. (PVT.) LTD. 
FEBRUARY 28, 1990 
A 
[LAUT MOHAN SHARMA AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.) 
B 
Indian Electricity Act, IYW: Electricity Supply-Disconnection 
of-Service of notice a pre-requisite. 
The Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking disconnected the supply 
of electricity to the respondent-company during the pendency of the suit C 
for a prohibitory injunction without serving notice on the consumer. 
The trial court dismissed the amended suit for mandatory injunction to 
restore the supply. The First Appellate Court decreed the suit on the 
sole ground of non-service of notice as required under condition No. 36 
in regard to supply of electricity by the appellant. It did not go into 
the allegation of theft of electricity by the plaintiff. The High Court 
D 
dismissed the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal by special leave, this Court, 
HELD: 1. The licensee undertaking is performing a public duty 
and is governed by a special statute. The law also contemplates 
E 
service · of a notice before disconnection of supply of electricity. 
The appellant cannot also be allowed to go back npon its words and 
refuse the consumer the benefit of notice as contemplated by the 
agreement. The suit was, therefore, rightly decreed by the First 
Appellate Court. [735B-C, A-BJ 
. -
2. The plaintiff is seriously denying the allegation of theft. It is 
not possible to assume the accusation as correct without a full-fledged· 
trial on this issue. The courts below have not examined the case on 
merits. The question whether the allegations are triie or not has to 
be examined and decided in an appropriate proceeding. The appellant 
will not, therefore, be prejudiced in its claim by dismissal of 
the appeal. [734G-H, 735Cf 
Jagarnath Singh v. B. S. Ramaswamy, [1966) I SCR 885, 
distinguished. 
F 
' G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3693 
fl 
of 1989. 
733 
A 
734 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 1 S.C.R. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.2.1989 of Delhi High 
Court in R.S.A. No. 31of1989. 
K.S. Bindra, R.K. Maheshwari and G.S. Gujananip for the 
Appellant. 
B 
Prem Sunder Jha for the Respondent. 
c 
D 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHARMA, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of a suit 
filed by the respondent-company against the appellant, Municipal 
Corporation of Delhi, for a mandatory injunction to restore the supply 
of electricity discontinued during the pendency.ofthe suit. Initially the 
suit was filed for a prohibitory injunction from disconnecting the 
electric connection. The plaint was amended following stoppage of the 
supply of energy. 
2. According to the plaintiff's case, the suit had to be filed as the 
Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking was threatening disconnection 
without disclosing any reason. Subsequently, some officers of the 
Undertaking made an inspection of the meters and alleged theft oJ 
electricity after tampering with the seals affixed on the meters. A First 
Information Report was lodged with the police. 
3. Admittedly no notice was served by the Delhi Electricity 
Supply Undertaking on the plaintiff before severing the electric 
connection. The learned trial court, however, dismissed the suit and 
the plaintiff appealed. The First Additional District Judge, Delhi, 
who heard the appeal decreed the suit on the sole ground of non-
f 
service of notice as required under condition no. 36 in regard to 
supply of electricity by the appellant. The Delhi High Court 
dismissed the appellant's second appeal at the admission stage by a 
reasoned judgment. 
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in 
G view of the conduct of the plaintiff in stealing electricity, the Court 
should in its discretion refuse to issue a direction for restoration of the 
electric supply. We are afraid, it is not possible to agree with the 
appellant for more reasons than one. The plaintiff is seriously denying 
the allegation of theft and it is not possible to assume the accusation as 
correct without a full-fledged trial on this issue. The case of Jagarnath 
H SinKh v. B.S. Ramaswamy, [1966] 1SCR885; relied upon on behalf of 
l 
y 
I 
M.C.D. v. AJANTA IRON & STEEL CO. [SHARMA. J.[ 
735 
the appellant is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as the consumer in 
that case was convicted under the Indian Penal Code, and the convic-
tion was being maintained in appeal. Besides, the service of notice is 
a prerequisite for disconnection, and 

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