PASCHIMANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. versus M/S. DVS STEELS & ALLOYS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 766 · Decided: 07-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 15 S.C.R 766 
A 
PASCHIMANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. 
A.· 
v. 
M/S. DVS STEELS & ALLOYS PVT. LTD. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6565 of 2008) 
B 
NOVEMBER 7, 2008 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND · LOKESHWAR 
SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Electricity: 
c 
Industrial consumer- Demand of electricity dues - Non-
. payment -
Sale of plot -
Claim by purchaser for fresh 
electricity connection - Stipulation by Electricity distributor that 
electricity dues of the original owner be cleared before fresh 
D connection is given - Legality of - Held: Such stipulation not 
unreasonable or arbitrary - Electricity distributor can stipulate 
the terms subject to which it would supply electricity. 
_, 
Industrial consumer - Demand of electricity dues - Non-
E 
payment - Sub-division of premises by owner into number of 
plots - Sale of plots - Claim for fresh electricity connection 
by one purchaser- Allowed on payment of pro-rata electricity 
dues of the original owner - Non-payment of pro-rata dues 
by other purchasers and as a result electricity connection not 
given to them - Electricity Commission passed interim order 
F directing the Electricity Distributor to accept bank guarantee 
'f 
from the original owner in regard to the alleged dues and to 
release fresh connections to all purchasers without 
demanding pro-rata dues from them - Directions complied 
with - Claim of first respondentfor refund of amount paid by 
G it -
Maintainability of - Held· Not maintainable ~ First 
respondent cannot seek refund on basis of subsequent -, 
interim order of the Commission, in absence of a specific 
direction for refund - First respondent having paid the said 
> 
H 
766 
PASCHIMANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. 767 
v. DVS STEELS & ALLOYS PVT. LTD. & ORS. 
~ 
amount voluntarily and in pursuance of its undertaking as a 
A 
condition for obtaining fresh electricity connection, is estopped 
from claiming the amount back, except in accordance with the 
-( 
terms subject to which the payment was made - Electricity 
Supply Code - Clause 4.3(g) and (h). 
.; 
B 
i 
The Electricity Distributor raised supplementary bills 
against the third respondent, an industrial consumer. The 
third respondent disputed the claim under the bills. The 
' 
.., 
matter is pending adjudication in the Court. 
The third respondent meanwhile closed its unit and c 
sub-divided its industrial plot into smaller plots and sold 
one plot to the first respondent. The first respondent 
applied to the appellant-Electricity Distributor and was 
sanctioned a fresh electricity connection on the condition 
that it would pay electricity dues of the third respondent, 
D 
in proportion to the area purchased by it. The first 
respondent accordingly deposited Rs.8.63 Lakhs being 
the pro-rata dues of the third respondent, subject to the 
condition that in the event of the pending challenge to 
the demand being decided in favour of third respondent, 
E 
the said amount would be refunded to first respondent. 
Appellant did not give electricity connection to 
several plot-purchasers from third respondent, who did 
: 
y 
not pay pro-rata dues of the third respondent. The third 
F 
respondent moved an application before the Electricity 
Regulatory Commission complaining that the appellant 
had arbitrarily refused power connection to the 
purchasers of sub-divided plots on the ground that 
money was due from third respondent, though the said 
G 
liability was disputed and was pending adjudication in 
-
Court. 
"" 
The Commission directed the appellant to accept a 
bank guarantee from the third respondent in regard to the 
disputed claim and to release new power connections to 
H 
... 
768 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[200~] 15 S.C.R. 
A purchasers of the sub-divided plots, without insisting 
upon payment of any amount towards the alleged dues 
of third :respondent. The third respondent furnished a 
bank guarantee. The first respondent demanded refund 
of the pro-rata dues paid by it earlier. i.e. Rs.8.63 lacs with 
B 
interest. The appellant declined the request. The first 
respondent filed writ petition.· The High Court held that 
the amounts allegedly due from third respondent were 
secured by a bank guarantee furnished by it, and 
therefore there was no need to retain any amount from 
c the purchasers of the sub-divided plots. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The supply of electricity by a distributor 
D to a consumer is 'sale of goods'. The distributor as the 

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