Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2008 (8) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2008 (8) TMI 1002 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues involved: Interpretation of Clause 21-A of the Terms and Conditions of Supply u/s 49 read with Section 79J of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, validity of the stay order granted by the High Court, requirement of payment of arrears of electricity dues by Respondent No. 1.

The Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the impugned order issued by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which unconditionally stayed the demand of arrears of electricity dues and directed the release of electricity connection to Respondent No. 1 challenging Clause 21-A of the Terms and Conditions of Supply u/s 49 read with Section 79J of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The Appellant contended that the High Court's grant of unconditional stay was unjustified, citing a previous judgment. Respondent No. 1 argued against being burdened with dues not stipulated in the auction notice, claiming the previous judgment was not applicable to the present case due to the challenge to the validity of Clause 21-A. The Court considered these arguments and noted an undertaking by Respondent No. 1 to deposit a sum of Rupees ten lakhs, leading to the restoration of electricity connection.

The Court refrained from expressing an opinion on the merits of the case pending before the High Court but found the impugned order legally unsustainable. Referring to a previous case, the Court directed Respondent No. 1 to deposit a further sum of Rupees twenty-five lakhs with a specific payment schedule. Failure to comply with the payment schedule would result in the automatic vacation of the stay order, allowing the Appellant-Nigam to disconnect the electricity supply. Additionally, Respondent No. 1 was instructed to pay the current electricity charges within the specified time frame, failing which the Nigam could disconnect the supply.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, modifying the impugned order to require specific payments by Respondent No. 1 to maintain the stay granted by the High Court, with consequences for non-compliance outlined to ensure timely payment of dues and electricity charges.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates