9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the tripartite agreement dated 8-9-1952 is a contract between the parties on the basis of which the plaintiffs can maintain their suit. 2. Whether the Government was a party to the agreement as a consumer and bound by it. 3. Whether Rs. 1,16,056/- is due from the defendant on account of the differences of rates for energy supplied. 4. Whether the suit is barred by Limitation. 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest. 6. Whether the suit is barred by Section 57 of the Electric Supply Act, 1948. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Tripartite Agreement as a Contract: The court examined whether the tripartite agreement dated 8-9-1952 amounted to a contract. The Company, Government, and consumers had agreed that the Company should provisionally charge six annas per unit until a Rating Committee determined the reasonableness of the rate increase to eight annas per unit. The court concluded that the agreement, signed by a government minister, was indeed a contract binding on all parties involved. 2. Government as a Party to the Agreement: The Government's participation in the agreement was scrutinized. The court noted that the Government was the largest consumer of electricity and had signed the agreement through a minister. Therefore, the Government was bound by the agreement both as a consumer and as a party to the contract. The court rejected the argument that the Government acted merely as a mediator. 3. Amount Due from the Defendant: The court addressed whether the plaintiff had adequately proved the amount claimed. The plaintiff had provided detailed bills and secondary evidence since the original bills were not traceable. The court found that the plaintiff had sufficiently proved its claim, except for two contested bills related to the City Corporation and Municipal Board. After excluding these amounts, the court determined that Rs. 99,663/14/- was due from the defendant. 4. Limitation: The court considered whether the suit was barred by limitation. The learned Civil Judge had applied Article 52 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, which provides a three-year limitation period for suits for the price of goods sold and delivered. However, the court found that the case involved a deferred demand for payment based on the Rating Committee's report, making Article 120 of the Limitation Act applicable. With a six-year limitation period under Article 120, the suit was filed within time. 5. Entitlement to Interest: The plaintiff claimed interest under Section 61 of the Sale of Goods Act. However, the court noted that electricity is not considered movable property under the Sale of Goods Act, as established by the Supreme Court in Avtarsingh v. State of Punjab. Consequently, the claim for interest was not tenable, and the court declined to award interest. 6. Bar by Section 57 of the Electric Supply Act, 1948: The court examined whether the agreement was void under Section 57 of the Electric Supply Act, which mandates that rates fixed by a Rating Committee cannot be applied retrospectively beyond a specific period. The court found that the Company's agreement to charge rates retrospectively from 1-2-1951, based on the Rating Committee's recommendation, was not inconsistent with Section 57. Therefore, the agreement was not void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. Conclusion: The court set aside the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, accepted the appeal, and passed a decree in favor of the appellant for Rs. 99,663/14/-. The plaintiff-appellant was awarded the costs of both courts on the decretal amount.
|
