MRITYUNJAY BASU Vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted in both the letters. Arguments heard.

(2.) Shri S. M. Kacker, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the High court. , bad no authority or jurisdiction to alter or vary the terms of the consent order passed by the learned Additional District Judge dated 23/12/1985 and the before ore could not have made the impugned direction for ad hoc payment of Rs. 3 lakhs towards electricity charges when much more was due in terms of the consent order. On the other hand, Shri D. N. Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, Damodar Vallely Corporation, submits that the revision was not directed against the aforesaid consent order but against the subsequent orders passed by the learned additional District Judge dated 18/02/1986 and 9/08/1986.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties , we do feel that there is considerable force in the submission made by Shri S. N. Kacker. We accordingly set aside the order passed by the High court and remit the matter for a decision afresh. The High court shall proceed to determine the questions 'raised in the revision petitions. Shri. D. N. Mukherjee states before us that respondent No. 1, Damodar Valley Corporation, will deposit without prejudice the amount claimed by the Receiver as due towards electricity charges in terms of the consent order within four weeks from today and further that it shall continue to deposit Rs. 82,000. 00 towards electricity charges, month by month, as directed by the learned Additional District Judge. The amount so deposited shall be held subject to the directions of the High court and disbursed accordingly. The High court will determine the actual amount due towards electricity charges after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing.