TELANGANA STATE SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. versus M/S SRIGDHAA BEVERAGES

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 295 · Decided: 01-06-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
295
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 295
295
TELANGANA STATE SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.
v.
M/S SRIGDHAA BEVERAGES
(Civil Appeal No. 1815 of 2020)
JUNE 01, 2020
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Electricity: Electricity dues – Liability of auction purchaser
to pay electricity dues of previous owner of purchased unit – In the
instant case, auction notice clearly stated that the unit was being
sold on ‘as is where is, what is there is and without any recourse’
basis and that the Authorised Officer carrying out the auction
absolved himself of the liability for any charge, lien, encumbrance,
property tax dues and electricity dues etc. – Auction purchaser
applied to appellant-Electricity Department for sanction of
connection for running the unit which was refused on the ground
that there were previous electricity dues – The Electricity Department
asserted its right to recover the dues from the new purchaser based
on clause 5.9.6 and 8.4 of General Terms and Conditions of Supply
of Distribution and Retail Supply Licensees in AP – Held: Since in
the auction notice, existence of electricity dues was specifically
mentioned as a liability of new purchaser and that the sale was on
‘as is where is, what is there is and without any recourse’ basis, the
Electricity Department was well within its right to demand dues of
the last owner from the respondent purchaser.
Electricity: Electricity dues partake the character of statutory
dues under Electricity Act, 2003 r/w General Terms and Conditions
of Supply – Therefore, they cannot be waived in view of provisions
of the Act itself more specifically s.56 of Electricity Act, 2003 (in
pari materia with s.24 of Electricity Act, 1910) and cannot partake
the character of dues of purely contractual nature.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Electricity dues, where they are statutory
in character under the Electricity Act and as per the terms and
conditions of supply cannot be waived in view of the provisions
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
296
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
of the Act itself more specifically section 56 of the Electricity
Act, 2003 (in pari materia with section 24 of the Electricity Act,
1910 and cannot partake the character of dues of purely
contractual nature. [Para 15A][303-F]
1.2 Where, as in case of the E-auction notice in question,
the existence of electricity dues, whether quantified or not, has
been specifically mentioned as a liability of the purchaser and the
sale is on “AS IS WHERE IS, WHATEVER THERE IS AND
WITHOUT RECOURSE BASIS”, there can be no doubt that
the liability to pay electricity dues exists on the respondent
(purchaser). [Para 15B][303-G; 304-A-B]
Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd. v. A.P. State Electricity Board
& Ors. (1998) 4 SCC 470 : [1998] 2 SCR 620 –
followed.
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Paramount
Polymers (P) Ltd. (2006) 13 SCC 101 : [2006] 7 Suppl.
SCR 635; Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited
& Ors. v. DVS Steels and Alloys Private Limited & Ors.
(2009) 1 SCC 210 : [2008] 15 SCR 766 – relied on
Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board & Anr.
(1995) 2 SCC 648 : [1995] 1 SCR 847; Haryana State
Electricity Board v. Hanuman Rice Mills, Dhanauri &
Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 145 : [2010] 10 SCR 217 –
distinguished.
Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana
Limited (through its CMD) & Ors. v. Gopal Agarwal &
Ors. (2018) 12 SCC 644; Special Officer, Commerce,
North Eastern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa
(NESCO) v. Raghunath Paper Mills Private Limited &
Anr. (2012) 13 SCC 479 : [2012] 13 SCR 71 – referred
to.
Case Law Reference
[1995] 1 SCR 847
distinguished
Para 7
(2018) 12 SCC 644
referred to
Para 7
[1998] 2 SCR 620
followed
Para 9
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
297
[2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 635
relied on
Para 10
[2008] 15 SCR 766
relied on
Para 12
[2010] 10 SCR 217
distinguished
Para 14
[2012] 13 SCR 71
referred to
Para 14
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1815
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra
Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 258 of 2018.
P. S. Narasimha, Sr. Adv., Mohd. Bande Ali and Rakesh K.
Sharma, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Filza Moonis, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Suyodhan Byrapaneni,
Mohd. Wasay Khan and Bharat J. Joshi, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. The respondent is an auction-purchaser of a unit owned by
M/s. SB Beverages Private Limit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.