LexTHE MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY LIMITED & ORS. versus BAPUNA ALCOBREW PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 340 : 2024 INSC 829 The Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited & Ors. v. Bapuna Alcobrew Private Limited & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 1095 of 2013) 04 November 2024 [Dipankar Datta* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether s.56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 has application to a demand raised by appellants-distributor on the first respondent for recovery of sums payable under the Electricity Act, 1910 and, whether demand, if it be treated as one under the 1910 Act, is sustainable having regard to long delay. Headnotes† Electricity Act, 2003 – s.56(2) – Electricity Act, 1910 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Matter pertaining to electricity consumption – Appellants-distributor and first respondent entered into an agreement for supply of electrical energy to the first respondent’s unit, with the first respondent guaranteeing a minimum consumption – Also permission accorded to the respondent to install turbo generating set on the condition that it would be used only as a stand-by and not parallel with the appellants’ supply system – However, on failure to abide the condition, appellant issued a notice, cancelling the permission – Writ petition filed wherein the High Court stayed the notice, subject to respondent depositing the minimum guarantee charges – Thereafter, appellant issued notice demanding Rupees seventy lakh, for not having utilised the minimum guaranteed consumption for the period between June 1996 and May 2000 – Respondent filed miscellaneous petition in the first writ petition, which was disposed of holding the first respondent liable to pay the ‘minimum guarantee charges’, irrespective of electricity consumed – However, later the respondent withdrew the writ petition – Issuance of second show cause notice for the same amount – Writ * Author [2024] 11 S.C.R. 341 The Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited & Ors. v. Bapuna Alcobrew Private Limited & Anr. petition thereagainst, partly allowed – Thereafter, writ appeal allowed quashing the second show cause notice upon application of s.56(2) of the 2003 Act, claim being time barred, as it was issued beyond the two years period of limitation – Sustainability: Held: Limitation period of two years prescribed for recovery of dues u/s.56 of the 2003 Act would apply to liabilities arising under the 2003 Act, and not prior to the enforcement thereof – Thus, Division Bench erred in holding that the liability incurred by the first respondent prior to the enforcement of the 2003 Act would still be barred by the provisions of s.56(2) thereof – Furthermore, orders having become final, leave no room for the first respondent to escape its statutory liability by arguing bar of limitation, when the statute itself did not prescribe such bar – Challenge to the first show cause notice having failed the principle of issue estoppel operated as a bar for the first respondent to raise a challenge to the second show cause notice, which had been issued for precisely the same due amount – Also, point even if wrongly decided binds the party against whom it is decided and the same point cannot be urged in a subsequent suit or proceeding at the same level – Issue of liability accruing to the first respondent for non-payment of minimum guarantee charges had been decided previously and such decision, not being subjected to any appeal, had attained finality in the eyes of law estopping the first respondent from reagitating the issue – Second writ petition at the instance of the first respondent was not maintainable and, ought not to have been entertained at all – However, since the appellants accepted the order of the Single Judge and issued fresh demand for reduced amount and which has since been recovered by encashing the bank guarantee, no order made for changing the position flowing from the said order – Thus, on conjoint reading of all the orders, the liability of the first respondent to pay the minimum guarantee charges is clear and such orders having attained finality, bound the first respondent; and no submission by the first respondent, either on delay in raising the demand or merit- based review of the action of the appellants, in the second writ petition was open to persuade the High Court to hold in favour first respondent – Thus, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court being unsustainable in law and set aside – Electric
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.