1994 (3) TMI 394 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether there is an arbitration agreement between the parties.
2. Whether the provisions of the Abridged Conditions of Supply and statutory provisions of Sections 21, 52 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, are applicable in the instant case.
3. Whether the disconnection of electricity supply was wrongful and if damages can be claimed.
4. Whether the dispute can be referred to arbitration under Condition No. 29 of the Abridged Conditions of Supply.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Arbitration Agreement Between the Parties:
The primary issue was whether an arbitration agreement existed between the parties. The respondent relied on Condition No. 29 of the Abridged Conditions of Supply, which provides for arbitration in case of disputes. However, the appellant argued that this Condition must be read in conjunction with the relevant provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, specifically Sections 24(1), 26(6), and 52, which outline the circumstances under which disputes can be referred to arbitration.

2. Applicability of Abridged Conditions of Supply and Statutory Provisions:
The court examined whether the dispute could be determined by the provisions of the Abridged Conditions of Supply or statutory provisions of the Indian Electricity Act. It was noted that the Conditions are akin to subordinate legislation and cannot override the Act. The court emphasized that only those matters directed by the Act to be determined by arbitration could be subject to such proceedings. Sections 24(1), 26(6), and 52 of the Act were scrutinized, and it was concluded that these sections did not cover the dispute at hand.

3. Wrongful Disconnection and Claim for Damages:
The respondent claimed that the disconnection of electricity was wrongful and sought damages. The court acknowledged that while Section 24(1) allows the Board to recover charges through a suit, it does not preclude the consumer from seeking redressal through civil courts for wrongful disconnection. Thus, the remedy of approaching a civil court for damages was available to the respondent.

4. Reference to Arbitration Under Condition No. 29:
Condition No. 29 allows for arbitration in disputes related to the supply of electricity or interpretation of conditions or agreements. The court noted that the dispute related to the interpretation of an Undertaking and the wrongful disconnection of supply, which could fall under Condition No. 29. However, the court held that the provisions of the Act, being a special and later enactment, would override the general law of arbitration. Therefore, despite Condition No. 29, the dispute could not be referred to arbitration as it was not covered by the Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment concerning issues 2 and 3. It held that the dispute could not be referred to arbitration under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The respondent was advised to approach the appropriate civil court for relief. No order was made as to costs.