- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
W.B State Electricity Board v. Fakir Chand Rice Mills And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The case concerns a monetary demand raised against the respondents for alleged pilferages in the meter reading of electrical energy supplied to them. A demand of Rs 28,68,264.06 was issued. The respondents filed a suit concerning the supply of electrical energy. The trial court directed payment of approximately Rs 2,60,000; this direction was confirmed on appeal. In revision, the High Court (CO No. 2714 of 1995) modified the order and directed the respondents to deposit Rs 5,60,000. The matter then came up in an appeal by special leave. At the outset, counsel for the respondents accepted notice, the Court heard both sides, and leave was granted.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court was correct in directing the respondents to deposit Rs 5,60,000, given the demand notice for Rs 28,68,264.06 and the procedural posture of the case.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondents' Arguments
- The matter involves a discretionary order, as pointed out by counsel for the respondents.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
- The Court noted that the High Court treated the matter as one of discretion but did not address the core question before it; instead, it reiterated the discretionary nature of the lower courts’ orders and modified the amount to Rs 5,60,000 without adjudicating the issue.
- The Court articulated a general approach for money claims pending adjudication: typically, at least half of the claimed amount is directed to be deposited as an interim measure.
- Given that the appellant is obligated to continue supplying electrical energy to the respondents during the pendency of the dispute, the Court reasoned that a corresponding obligation should be placed on the respondents to make a substantial interim payment, subject to the final determination in the suit.
- Applying these considerations, the Court directed the respondents to deposit Rs 12,00,000 within two months, giving credit for any amount already deposited (including Rs 5,60,000, if already paid) and requiring only the balance to be paid within the stipulated period.
Holding and Implications
DISPOSED OF. The Court directed the respondents to deposit Rs 12,00,000 within two months from the date of the order, with credit for any amount already deposited (including the previously ordered Rs 5,60,000). No costs were awarded.
Implications: The immediate effect is an increased interim deposit obligation on the respondents while the underlying suit continues, reflecting a balance between the supplier’s duty to provide energy and the consumer’s duty to make payment pending final adjudication. The order is case-specific and does not set out broader doctrinal changes.
Order
1. Mr A.D Sikri, the learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. We have heard the counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the respondents, it is a discretionary order. The discretion would also be properly exercised by the courts below when dealing with the points in controversy. A demand of Rs 28,68,264.06 was made on the allegation that there were pilferages in the meter reading of the electrical energy supplied to the respondents. In a suit by the respondents for supply of energy to the respondents, the trial court directed payment of Rs 2,60,000 and odd. On appeal, it was confirmed. When it was carried in revision, the High Court in CO No. 2714 of 1995 modified the order and directed the respondents to deposit a sum of Rs 5,60,000. Thus this appeal by special leave.
4. A demand notice for Rs 28 lakhs and odd having been issued, the question is: whether the court was right in directing ultimately payment of Rs 5,60,000? The High Court does not appear to have addressed itself to the questions. It simply repeated that it was a discretionary order passed by the courts below directing payment of Rs 2.60 lakhs and at the same time directed the respondents to deposit Rs 5,60,000 without adjudicating the matter. Normally, in matters of money claim, at least half of the amount would be directed to be deposited. In the situation obtaining in this case, when the appellant is obligated to supply electrical energy to the respondents, an equal obligation has to be cast on the respondents to pay the amount subject to determination of controversy in the suit. Under these circumstances, the respondents are directed to deposit a sum of Rs 12 lakhs within a period of two months from today. If the amount of Rs 5,60,000 has already been deposited, the same may be given credit for the payment and the balance be paid within the aforesaid period.
5. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Alert