9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears of the previous owner. Appeal dismissed. - L. Nageswara Rao And Navin Sinha, JJ. For the Appellant : Rakesh K. Sharma, Adv. For the Respondent : V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Nagarjuna Babu and K. Sharat Kumar, Advs. JUDGMENT L. Nageswara Rao, J. 1. The Writ Petition filed by Respondent No. 1 challenging the action of the Appellants in not releasing the Low Tension (domestic) Power Supply was allowed by a Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The appeal filed by the Appellants was dismissed by the Division Bench. Challenging the legality and validity of the said judgment the Appellants have approached this Court by fling this appeal. 2. The City Union Bank Limited, the Second Respondent herein issued a tender/sale n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no response from the Appellants, the First Respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The said Writ Petition was allowed by a judgment dated 23.02.2007 on the ground that the Petitioner cannot be denied the power supply connection due to non-payment of arrears payable by the previous owner of the property. The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh relied upon two judgments of this Court in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. Gujarat Inns (P) Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 587 and Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board (1995) 2 SCC 648. 5. A Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the judgment of the Single Judge by dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellants. The Division Bench held that there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eable property of M/s. Konark Paper and Industries Limited on as is where is and whatever there is basis. The auction purchaser applied for a fresh electricity connection to its unit which was denied on the ground of non-payment of arrears by the past owner. After considering the judgments in Ahmedabad Electricity Company (supra) and Isha Marbles (supra), this Court held that the request of the auction purchaser for a fresh connection could not have been rejected. 7. The facts of this case are similar to that of NESCO v. Raghunath Paper Mills (P) Ltd. (2012) 13 SCC 479. The tender/sale notice mentioned that the property was being auctioned on as is where is basis. The First Respondent applied for a fresh connection and he is in no way conne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
