PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD versus BASSI COLD STORAGE, KHABAR AND ANR.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 33 · Decided: 16-03-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD 
A 
v. 
BASSI COLD STORAGE, KHABAR Al\D ANR. 
MARCH 16, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
B 
Elect1icity Act, 191(}-Sections 13(2), 16(3), 19(2), 21(4), 22A(2), 24( 1), 
26(6) and 52:-Arbitral disputes--Dete1mination-Overriding effect of 
provisions of Act-Matters enumerated in Act alone should go for arbitra-
tion-Act to prevail over law of arbitration and also stipulation contained in 
C 
conditions between parties-Disconnection of electn'city-Clain1 of daniages 
for wrongful disconnection-Remedy-Arbitration-Wliether disputes would 
be referable to arbitration. 
The respondent, a consumer of electric energy, had some dispute 
with the Electricity Board which was resolved. However, his power supply D 
was disconnected. Since the disconnection was done in a wrongful n1anner, 
to determine the quantum of damage, the respondent called upon the 
Board to appoint an arbitrator. However, the Board approached the Court 
to quash the arbitration proceedings initiated by the respondent stating 
that the dispute in question could not be the subject matter of arbitmtion. E 
The Senior Sub-Judge rejected the contention. Revision filed against the 
order was also dismissed. 
In this appeal challenging the order, appellants contended that only 
those matters could he determined by arbitration relating to which there 
is a direction in the Act as stated by Section 52. 
The respondent sought to rely on Condition No. 29 of Abridged 
Conditions of Supply applicable to the consumers of the Board it, support 
of its case that the present dispute is an arbitral dispute. Further, as the 
F 
difference or dispute at hand cannot be determined as provided in the G 
main part of condition 29, the provisions of the Arbitration Act would 
come into play. According to the appellant, the condition has to be read 
alongwith the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act and the Act would 
prevail over the conditions. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
33 
H 
A 
B 
c 
34 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 3 S.C.R. 
HELD : 1.1. The matters relating to which there is no direction in 
the Indian Electricity Act required to be determined by arbitration cannot 
be the subject matter of arbitration. This is for the reason of the Act being 
not only a special statute on the question as to which disputes covered by 
it could be decided by arbitration, but also because it is a later statute than 
the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899. [39-H; 40-A] 
1.2. What has been provided in Condition 29 has to be read 
alongwith the provisions of the Act and, in case provisions of the Act 
would not permit reference of the dispute at hand to arbitration, what has 
been laid down in the Act has to prevail over the remedy provided by 
Condition 29. Having found that the dispnte of the present nature cannot 
be subject matter of arbitration being not covered by any of the sections 
of the Act dealing with arbitration and that the provisions of the Act have 
to override what has been mentioned in the Condition, and that the Act 
would prevail over the general law of arbitration now contained in the 
Arbitration Act of 1940 (and earlier in Arbitration Act, 1899) it is held 
0 
that though the present dispute would ha,·e been referable to arbitration 
because of what has been provided in Condition 29, it cannot be done, in 
view of the provisions of the Act which would override the stipulation 
contained in the Condition. [ 42F -H; 43-A] 
Ajay Kumar v. Union of India, AIR (1984) SC 1130; Commissioner 
E Sales Tax v. Agra Belting Works, [1987] 3 SCC 140; Usman Bhai Dawood 
Blzai v. State of Gujarat, [1988] 2 SCC 271; Vijay Kumar Shamta v. State 
of Kamataka, [1990] 2 SCC 562; Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Punjab National 
Bank, [1990] 4 SCC 406 and R.S. Raghunath v. State of Kamataka, [1992] 
1 sec 335, relied on. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1813 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.8.1986 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 1791 of 1986. 
G 
P.P. Rao, P-.N. Gupta and Shrinath Singh for the Appellant. 
Kapil Sibal and P.O. Sharma for the respondents. 
The .Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
HANSARIA, .J. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel of the parties. 
-+· 
ELECTRICITY BOARD v. BASSI COLD STORAGE [HANSARIA, J.] 
35 
2. Bassi Cold Storage, respondent No. 1, is a consumer of electric A 
energy supplied by the appellant Punjab State Electricity Board 
(hereinafter the Board), who is a licen

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