A
B
WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
v.
MIS FAKIR CHAN'D RICE MILLS AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 27, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHAMAD AND
G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Electlicity-<;onsume1~Pilferage-Demand of Rs. 28, 68, 264.06 from
consume1~Suit by consumer for supply of elect1icity-Direction by t1ial to
C consumer to deposit Rs. 2,60,000-High Cowt-Modification of order and
direction to deposit Rs. 5,60,000-Validity of direction by High Cowt-Held
nonnally in matters of money claim at least half of amount would be directed
to be deposited-In this case Board is obligated to supply electlical ener-
gy-Consumer is also under obligation to pay amount subject to detennination
of controversy in suit-Conswner directed to deposit Rs. 12 lakhs.
D
E
F
Cowt-Power to pass discretionary orde1~S1tould be exercised proper-
ly.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4720 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.95 of the Calcutta High
Court in C.O. No. 2714 of 1995.
V.B. Reddy Additional Solicitor General, H.K. Pµri, Rajesh Srivas-
tava and S.P. Lenka, for the Appellant.
Sivaji Sen, Bar-at-Law, S.C. Ghosh and A.D. Sikri for the Respon-
dents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G
Mr. A.D. Sikri, Learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of .the
respondents. We have heard the counsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the respondents, it is a
H discretionary order. The discretion would also be properly exercised by the
1142
}
'
' .t
'--
--
\
W.B.S. ELECfRICITY BD. v. FAKIR CHAND RICE MILLS
1143
courts below when dealing with the points in controversy. A demand of Rs. A
28, 68, 264.06 was made on the allegation that there were pilferages in the
meter reading of the electrical energy supplied to the respondents. In a suit
by the respondents for supply of energy to the respondents, the trial Court
directed payment of Rs. 2,60,000 and odd. On appeal, it was confirmed.
When it was carried in revision, the High Court in C.O. No 2714 1995 B
...-
modified the order and directed the respondents to deposit a sum of Rs.
5,60,000. Thus this appeal by special leave.
A demand notice for Rs. 28 lakhs and odd having been issued, the '
question is : whether the Court was right in directing ultimately payment
of Rs. 5,60,000 ? The High Court does not appear to have addressed itself C
to the questions. It simply repeated that it was a discretionary order passed
by the courts below directing payment of Rs. 2.60 lakhs and at the same
time directed the respondents to deposit Rs. 5,60,000 without adjudicating
the matter. Normally, in matters of money claim, at least half of the amount
would be directed to be deposited. In the situation obtaining in this case,
when the appellant is obligated to supply electrical energy to the respon-
D
dents an equal obligation has to be cast on the respondents to pay the
amount subject to determination of controversy in the suit. Under these
circumstances, the respondents are directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 12
lakhs within a period of two months from today. If the amount of Rs.
5,60,000 has already been deposited, the same may be given credit for the E
payment and the balance be paid within the aforesaid period.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
T.N.A.
Appeal disposed of.
Lex