9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the decree directing removal of electric line with poles and payment of damages was justified. 2. Whether the suit was barred by limitation. 3. Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute under the Indian Electricity Act. 4. Whether the High Court correctly modified the decree. Analysis: Issue 1: The appellant was directed to remove the electric line with poles and pay damages by the trial Judge, which was upheld by the First Additional District Judge. The High Court modified the decree, removing the mandatory injunction for removal but sustaining damages. The appellant challenged this in the Supreme Court. Issue 2: The appellant attempted to argue that the suit was barred by limitation, a point not raised earlier. The Supreme Court did not allow this argument as it was a mixed question of fact and law. The appellant then argued that the suit was barred under Sections 12, 19, and 52 of the Indian Electricity Act, contending that the civil court lacked jurisdiction. Issue 3: The plaintiff's grievance was that the transmission lines were laid without consent, endangering the property. All courts found in favor of the plaintiff, stating the lines were unauthorized. The High Court held that the plaintiff's remedy was a civil suit for compensation, not under the Electricity Act, citing relevant case law. Issue 4: The High Court, after analyzing the provisions of the Electricity Act, held that the appellant Board did not act in accordance with the Act. The High Court's decision was supported by case law precedent. The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's findings and upheld the modified relief granted. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant's failure to settle the matter outside the court. The Court found no error in the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the suit was maintainable and the modified relief was justified.
|
