Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S CHAND COLD STORAGE, TALGRAM versus CHAIRMAN, U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Chand Cold Storage, Talgram v. Chairman, U.P. State Electricity Board & Others - WRIT - C No. 37220 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 13963 (14 August 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

                                                                               Court No.6.

           Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37220 of 2007.

M/s. Chand Cold Storage.       vs.    Chairman, U.P. State Electricity

                                                         Board and others.

Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J.

     A suit for injunction was filed by the petitioner restraining the respondent U.P. State Electricity Board and other defendants who are the officers of the Board from recovering electricity dues and from disconnecting his electric supply. It appears that there were dues of Rs. 12,45,180/- against the petitioner. According to the respondents the petitioner had committed theft of electricity and some of the seals of the meter were found tampered. The trial court granted a temporary injunction on the condition that the petitioner deposits 1/3 of the amount of the electricity dues and furnishes security for the balance of the amount.  An appeal was filed by the respondents which was allowed and the injunction order has been vacated.

        I have heard Sri P. K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. K. Tiwari holding brief of Sri H.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents.

        Learned counsel for the electricity Board and counsel for the petitioner agree that the writ petition may be disposed of finally today.  It was submitted by the petitioner's counsel that the appellate court has erred in law in vacating the injunction order on the ground that the departmental appeal lies against the assessment of electricity dues and the civil court has no jurisdiction. On the other hand it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act, which provides that in case an equally efficacious remedy is available to the plaintiff no injunction can be granted. It is submitted that under Regulation 23 of the Electricity Supply (Consumer Regulations), 1984 an appeal lies against an assessment order and as such an equally efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner. Faced with this situation counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will file an appeal within ten days from today under Regulation 23 before the  appellate authority. In the circumstances as the petitioner has remedy of filing an appeal, which he wants to avail of no ground for grant of injunction has been made out. The order passed by the appellate court does not suffer from any illegality. However, it is appropriate that until the disposal of the appeal the recovery of dues against the petitioner and disconnection of the electricity supply should remain stayed. It is therefore directed that in case the appeal is filed within a period of ten days from today the disconnection of the electricity supply of the petitioner and the recovery shall remain stayed. In case the appeal is not filed within this time this order shall stand vacated. In case such an appeal is filed it may be disposed of by the appellate authority if possible within a period of one month. Counsel for the petitioner states that no adjournment will be taken by the petitioner.

         With the above observations the writ petition is disposed of.

         Copy of this order be made available to the learned counsel for the parties within two days on payment of usual charges.

14.8.2007.

s.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.