(2008] 1 S.C.R. 637
,... • ~
OSWAL WOOLEN MILLS LTD
A
v.
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR.
-
(C.A. No. 2335 of 2006)
JANUARY 11, 2008
B
(S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.)
4
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948:
'
ss. 46 and 49 - Electricity tariff - Levy of surcharge -
Clarification of judgment dated 28.4.2006*- HELD: Company c
is liable to pay and has paid actual amount of surcharge with
effect from the date of expiry of one year from 13. 5. 1992 -
Surcharge @ 17Y2% was not required to be paid in term of the
tariff Notification dated 1.2.1994.
*Oswal Woolen Mills Ltd. Vs. Punjab State Electricity
D
..../.
Board & Anr. [2006] 1 Supp. S CR 480 - referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 91 In Civil
Appeal No. 2335 of 2006.
E
Mahindera Anand, Neeraj Kumar Jain, Bharat Singh,
-
Sarijay Singh, Sandeep Chaturvedi and Ugra Shankar Prasad,
for the Appellant.
i
Ruchi Gour Narula, Ruchi Kohli and Rajiv Nanda for the F
Respondents.
,!I
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ORDER
1. This application has been filed for clarification of a 0
judgment and order dated 28.04.2006 passed by a Division ·
"i
Bench of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2335 of 2006.
2. The clarification has been sought for on the issue as to
whether 13.05.1992 was the cut-off date for commencement of
637
H
\
638
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 1 S.C.R.
~ •
~
A the period of one year for converting supply from 11 KV to 33
KV or higher voltage or the surcharge was actually payable with
effect from the said date.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we
B are of the opinion that the Company is liable to pay the surcharge
with effect from the date of expiry of one year from 13. 05.1992
and ·not from 13.05.1992 itself. The relevant paragraph of the
~
judgment of this Court, accordingly, may be substituted by the
following:
•
c
'For the reasons aforementioned, although Mr. R.K. Jain,
the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the company, may
be right in his submission that the Board has no jurisdiction to
levy surcharge after 29.01.1992, but as the said contention had
not been raised and furthermore as notice was issued by the
D court on a limited question, we are of the opinion that the
company is liable to pay the surcharge with effect from the date
of expiry of one year from 13.05.1992. We may furthermore
)o.
notice that the actual amount of surcharge payable from that
date has already been paid by the company to the Board.
E However, in view of our findings aforementioned, there cannot
be any doubt that the surcharge @ 17 %% was not required to
be paid in terms of the tariff notification dated 01.02.1994.'
-
The I.A. is disposed of accordingly.
R.P.
F
Interlocutory Application disposed of.
"
--
Lex