THE AMALGAMATED ELECTRICITY CO., LTD. versus N. S. BATHENA

Citation: [1959] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 213 · Decided: 13-02-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2) S.C.R: SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
213 
THE AMALGAMATED ELE,CTRICITY CO., LTD. 
r959 
. v. 
.: .. , . '·· February IJ. 
I .N .• S. BATHENA 
.. ' 
.,··· 
(JAFER IMAM, ·A. K. SARKAR and 
· · K. 'Su:BB.A RAo; JJ.) · · · 
Arbitration_:_Arbit;ation claus~ in ele~tricity licence-Whether 
binding on consumer of electricity-Electricity (Supply) Act, r948 
(54 of r948); s. 57, ct. XV I of Sixth Schedule. 
The arbitration clause incorporated by s. 57(1) of the 
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, in a licence granted by the 
Government for the supply of electrical energy to the consumers 
is not· available for adjudicating upon a dispute between the 
licensee. and the consumer, for the licence is an engagement be-
tween the licensee and the Government and the arbitration 
clause in it refers only to disputes between them. Section 57(1) 
does not make the arbitration clause a statutory provision by 
virtue of which disputes between any and every person may be 
referred to arbitration. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 
361 of 1958. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated December 11, 1957, of the Mysore High 
Court in Civil Revision No. 702 of 1956, against the 
judgment and order dated August 10, 1956, of the 
Court of the Second-Extra Assistant Judge, Belgaum, 
in Misc. Appeal No. 36 of 1955, arising out of the 
order dated September 1, 1955, of the 1st Joint Civil 
Judge, Junior Division, Belgaum, in Regular Civil 
Suit No. 197 of 1955. 
M. M. Gharekhan and J. N. Shroff, for the appel-
lant. 
D. D. Chawla and G. Gopalakrishna.n, for the respon-
dent. 
B. Sen and T. M. Sen, for the intervener (Attorney-
General of India). 
1959. February 13. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
SARKAR, J.-This is an appeal from the judgment 
passed by the High Court at Bangalore on a petition in 
revision. The question is whether a certain suit should 
be stayed under s. 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. 
Sarkar J. 
214 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 
, 959 
The appellant carries on business as a supplier of 
--
electrical energy in Belgaum. It obtained a licence 
The Amalgamated from the Government under s. 3 of the Indian Elec-
Electricity co., Ltd. tricity Act, 1910, authorising it to supply the energy 
Ba~ena 
in that area. The respondent, who is the plaintiff in 
the suit, obtained supply of electricity from the appel-
Sarkar J. 
lant. The respondent felt that he was being over-
charged by the appellant for the electricity so 
supplied. He thereupon filed a suit in the Court of 
the Civil Judge, Belgaum, on or about the 8th of June, 
1955, claiming a refund of the amount paid in excess 
of what he thought was the legitimate charge. The 
appellant then applied under s. 34 of the Arbitration 
Act for a stay of the suit on the ground that the 
matter was referable to arbitration under the provi-
sions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The appli-
cation was dismissed by the Civil Judge and his 
decision was confirmed by the Extra Assistant Sessions 
Judge on appeal and lastly, by the High Court in 
revision. The appellant has now come to this Court. 
The appellant contends that this matter is referable 
to arbitration under the provision contained in 
cl. XVI of the Sixth Schedule of the Act of 1948. 
A 
few of the provisions of these Acts will now have to 
be referred to. Under the Act of 1910 the business of 
supplying electrical energy can be carried on only 
with the sanction of the Government. Section 3 of 
that Act makes provision for the grant of a licence 
for supplying electrical energy. The appellant obtain-
ed a licence in 1932. 
A form of the licence is set out in the rules framed 
under the Act of 1910 and that form prescribes the 
maximum limit which a licensee is entitled to charge 
a consumer for the electrical energy supplied. The 
Act of 1948 made a somewhat different provision with 
regard to these charges. It provided by s. 57 as 
follows:-
" S. 57. 
(1) The provisions of the Sixth Schedule 
and the Table appended to the Seventh Schedule shall 
be deemed to be incorporated in the licence of every 
licensee, not being a local authority, from the date of 
the commencement of the licensee's next succeeding 
(2) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
215 
year of account, and from such date the licensee shall 
x959 
comply therewith accordingly and any provisions of Th 
A 
1 
1 d 
such licence or of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, or El:ctrici7; f;.~~1~. 
any other law, agreement or ins

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