9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Liability of directors of a company for outstanding electricity dues. 2. Interpretation of the term 'consumer' in the context of electricity supply agreements. Summary: Issue 1: The judgment addressed the liability of directors of a company for outstanding electricity dues. The petitioner, a director of a public limited company, entered into an agreement for electricity supply on behalf of the company. The company failed to pay the bills, leading to a demand notice issued to the petitioner under the U.P. Government Electricity Undertaking (Recovery of Dues) Act 1958. The petitioner contended that as a director, he was not personally liable for the company's dues. The court referred to relevant legal provisions and held that directors cannot be made personally liable for the company's electricity dues unless they provide personal guarantees or undertakings. Issue 2: The judgment also delved into the interpretation of the term 'consumer' in electricity supply agreements. The petitioner argued that as per the Electric Supply (Consumers) Regulations 1984 and the Electricity Act 2003, the 'consumer' should be the company and not the directors personally. The court analyzed the definitions of 'consumer' under various laws and regulations, concluding that the company, not the directors, should be considered the consumer in this case. The court highlighted that directors can only be held personally liable if they act beyond their powers or make negligent misrepresentations. In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition partly, quashing the recovery citation against the petitioner's personal assets. The respondents were restrained from recovering dues from the petitioner personally, emphasizing that recovery proceedings should be directed towards the company in accordance with the law.
|
