High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
U.H.B.V.N. Limited & Anr v. Shri Nathi Singh & Ors - RSA-707-2006  RD-P&H 945 (20 February 2006)
R.S.A. No. 707 of 2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision: February 16, 2006
U.H.B.V.N. Limited and another
Shri Nathi Singh and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate, for the appellants.
VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
The defendants-U.H.B.V.N. Limited (hereinafter referred to as `the Nigam') have lost concurrently before both the Courts below in a suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging the notice dated May 17,2001 issued by defendant No.2 imposing a penalty of Rs.1,09,918/- on account of an alleged theft of energy. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the aforesaid notice was factually incorrect and was illegal, bad and not binding upon the plaintiff and no recovery could be made from him.
The plaintiff claimed that he was running an Atta Chakki and was a consumer of electricity. On May 7, 2005, a team of the defendants came and checked the meter. The said meter was removed later on. A notice of imposition R.S.A. No. 707 of 2006 (O&M) 
of penalty was issued. The plaintiff was made to pay the aforesaid amount under the threat of registration of a criminal case. The plaintiff deposited the said amount under protest and thereafter has filed the present suit for declaration.
The defendants contested the suit and claimed that a team of officers had inspected the premises of the plaintiff and on checking, found that there was slight gap in the meter glass, and therefore, it was clear that there was a theft of electricity.
Both the Courts below have concurrently found that no evidence had been led by the defendants that there was any theft of energy at any point of time by the plaintiff. It has also been found that simply because there was a slight gap in the meter glass could not be taken that the plaintiff was indulging in the theft of energy. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed.
However, the learned trial Court declined to grant any interest to the plaintiff while claiming refund of the amount deposited by him.
Two appeals were filed before the learned first Appellate Court. An appeal was filed by the defendant challenging the decree of the learned trial Court.
Plaintiff filed an appeal claiming interest on the refund amount.
The learned first Appellate Court reappraised the evidence and came to the similar conclusion as had been arrived at by the learned trial Court. The appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed and he was allowed interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of refund.
Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record.
R.S.A. No. 707 of 2006 (O&M) 
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.
February 16, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.