2016 (12) TMI 419 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of electricity connection to the share holders of the company owning the property / joint owners - excess meters provided - Held that - CESC Limited says in their affidavit that at the time of the installation of the meters there was no objection from any quarter. They have also said in paragraph 6 (a) of their affidavit that the premises is a big bungalow known as Mody House . The security guard and the care taker of the building told the CESC officials that the sixth and seventh respondents belonged to the Mody family. CESC also found them to reside in this house on the ground and first floors. In such a situation, I do not think that wayleave permission assumes any specific importance because members of the same family were found be CESC to occupy the property which seemed like a family property, and nobody came forward to object to the grant of electricity connection. In those circumstances, in my opinion, CESC Limited cannot be said to be in breach of their statutory duty. Furthermore, the first petitioner is a family company and the private respondents are members of that family. It is very usual for family companies in India to hold its assets as in a partnership business. The courts have also consistently recognised that the principles of partnership may be applied to this kind of a family corporation. Not surprisingly the private respondents have asserted that they have almost a 50% stake in the company and thus a 50% share in the property. They feel they had rightly applied for electricity connection and obtained meters to service certain parts of the joint property. In my opinion, in this kind of a situation when electricity connection has already been given the court should not interfere with it in its writ jurisdiction. It is much better if such a dispute is resolved in a civil forum like a Court, arbitration of the Company Law Board.

Summary

Issues:
1. Granting of electricity connection to specific individuals without proper consent.
2. Allegations of misrepresentation in application forms and wayleave permission.
3. Dispute over ownership and occupation of the property.
4. Delay in challenging the installation of meters.
5. Interpretation of family company dynamics and ownership rights.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the granting of electricity connection to specific individuals without the proper consent of the public company that owns the property. The petitioners argued that the meters were wrongfully granted to the individuals as they were not the rightful owners or occupants of the property.

2. Allegations of misrepresentation in the application forms and wayleave permission were raised by the petitioners. It was contended that the individuals who applied for the connection misrepresented their ownership and occupation status in the documents submitted to the electricity provider.

3. A significant part of the dispute involved the ownership and occupation of the property in question. The court examined the claims of different branches of the family owning shares in the public company that owned the property. The judgment delved into the conflicting assertions regarding ownership and occupation rights.

4. The court noted a considerable delay in challenging the installation of the meters, which were installed months before the writ was filed. Despite the delay, the court analyzed the circumstances surrounding the installation and subsequent objections raised by the petitioners.

5. The judgment also delved into the dynamics of a family company and the ownership rights of the family members involved. It discussed the application of partnership principles to family corporations and emphasized the need for resolving such disputes through civil forums like courts, arbitration, or the Company Law Board.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ application while clarifying that the private respondents could not claim any rights in the property due to the installation of the meters. The judgment highlighted the complexities of family-owned businesses, misrepresentation issues, and the importance of resolving disputes through appropriate legal channels.