MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI versus THE ASIAN ART PRINTERS (P) LTD. AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 8 · Decided: 31-08-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI 
v. 
THE ASIAN ART PRINTERS (P) LTD. AND ORS. ETC.: ETC. 
I 
AUGUST 31, 1994 
B 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.] 
The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 : 
Section 283'--Electricity-Charges for supply-Non-residential 
C premises-Mixed Load (HT) connection-Tariff rate--Non-Domestic (Mixed 
Load HT) Tariff-Clauses (c) and (d)-/nterpretation of-Held, the clauses 
provide for a two-part tariff-Charges payable would be a sum of demand 
charges ''plus" energy charges,· and not the amount whichever is higher of the 
two-Clause (d), i.e. the minimum Bill clause, does not have the effect of 
modifying or cutting down the meaning or purport of fonnula contained in 
D clause (c). 
The respondent was a consumer of electricity under the appellant-
Corporation (supplier). It had applied for a "Mixed Load(HT)" connection 
for "non-residential premises". For the purpose of tariff, the premises fell 
E in the category of "Non· Domestic (Mixed Load HT) tariff'. The relevant 
provisions i.e. clause (c) mentioned tariff as "Demand charges: Rs. 40 per 
month per KV A or part thereof of the commuted load (as per load in the 
test report) plus Energy charges: 67 paise per unit": It was further 
provided that these charges would be without prejudice to the minimum 
demand as laid down in clause (d) and adjustment dause at (xviii) under 
F 
General Conditions of Application. A dispute arose between the parties 
with respect to tariff amount/charges. payable by the respondent each 
month. The respondents and other consumers filed petitions under section 
20 of the Arbitration Act, which were allowed by the single judge of the 
High Court. The appeals filed by the Corportion and the cross-objections 
G filed by the consumers were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High 
Court. Aggrieved, the Corporation filed the appeals by special leave. 
The respondents contended that clause (c) of the "Mixed Load HT" 
provides that first the demand charges @ Rs. 40 per month per KV A would 
be ascertained and then the energy charges @ 67 paise per unit would be 
H calculated and whichever was higher would be payable, and in the event of 
8 
M.C.D. v. ASIAN ART PRINTERS LTD. 
9 
both • the demand charges and the energy charges • being equal, the A 
demand charges would be payable. The contention of the appellant was 
that a sum of both the demand charges and the energy charges-calculated 
according to the formula provided in clause (c) was the tariff payable by 
•• 
the consumers • 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
B 
HELD : 1.1. The tariff rate for the Mixed Load HT (other than 
industrial load) in clauses (c) and (d) provide for a two· part tariff. The 
first part comprises of demand charges and the second part of energy 
charges. The tariff amount shall be determined as an amount which is the c 
total of demand charges plus energy charges, calculated according to the 
•• 
formula given in clause (c). This is evident from the word "plus" occurring 
between the two items i.e. between demand charges and energy charges. 
When clause (c) says that the charges payable are demand charges plus 
energy charges, it means just that; it cannot mean demand charges or 
D 
energy charges whichever is higher. Clause (c) is not capable of any other 
interpretation, and it admits of no ambiguity whatsoever. The language is 
clear and not susceptible of any reasonable doubt. The words in clause (c), 
"the above shall be 'without prejudice' to the minimum demand as laid 
down in (d)" indicate that the formula given in clause (c) is unaffected by 
what is stated in clause (d). [14-C-FJ 
E 
1.2. Clause (d) with the heading "Minimum Bill" states, "the amount 
t. 
of the demand charges based upon the KVA of billing demand", meaning 
thereby that even in case there is no consumption, the minimum bill shall 
be the demand charges based upon the KV A of the billing demand. In view 
of the language of clause (c) it is not possible to read clause (d) as F 
modifying or cutting down the meaning or purport of the formula con· 
tained in clause (c). All that it says is that the demand charges based upon 
the KVA of the billing demand shall at any rate represent the minimum 
bill. [15-G-H, 16-A-B] 
1.3. The observation in Ashok Soap Factory* have no application to G 
~ 
the tariff condition relevant in the instant appeals because of the substan-
tial difference in the language employed in the tariff conditions considered 
in that decisi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.