ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, (NOW RE-DESIGNATED AS ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD.,) HYDRAL PROJECT., SRISAILAM WEST, MEHABOOBNAGAR DISTRICT-509326 ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER Vs. M/S. VI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition assails the order of the Appellate Tribunal, passed on 17.04.2007 directing the petitioner, Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board to pay a sum of Rs. 49.59 lakhs to the respondent bank viz., Vijaya Bank. Out of this sum Rs. 48.45 lakhs had already been deposited with Vijaya Bank which it was permitted to appropriate. Accordingly the petitioner is required to pay the shortfall of Rs. 1.14 lakh to Vijaya Bank.

(2.) AT the outset we must record our dissatisfaction with the documents placed on record by the petitioner. In particular, Annexure -B purports to be a true copy of the order of the Tribunal in O -A. No. 655/1995, in respect of which the impugned order came to be passed. One of the contentions of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no adverse findings have been returned against the petitioner by the DRT. A perusal of that order however reveals that the Tribunal has gone into specific detail vis -a -vis the liability of the "8th defendant". The true copy of the order depicts the petitioner as "defendant no. 7". Learned Counsel for the respondents' perseverance that the finding of the DRT was against the petitioner finally led us to call for the certified copy of the said order. It was at that stage that it came to be revealed that in actuality the petitioner was the 8th defendant before the DRT. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would have us believed that in the preparation of Annexure -B, by inadvertent error, the petitioner had been depicted as the 7th Defendant while it had been arrayed as the 8th Defendant before the DRT. It appears that Systems Manufacturing (P) Ltd. which was the Defendant No. 6 in O.A. 655/95 in the DRT has for reasons recondite and not adequately explained before us, been removed from the array of parties in Annexure -B. We accept that 'errors' of this nature can inadvertently creep into the preparation of a paper book. We, however, cannot accept this excuse in the case in hand for the reason that even though arguments were addressed in detail, counsel for the petitioner failed to point cut the discrepancy. The petitioner would certainly be in the know of the position that the DRT had specifically considered its liability and passed orders in that context. The attempt to mislead the court must be deprecated.

(3.) SUCCINCTLY stated Bulk System International Ltd., (Bulk Systems) had been appointed by the petitioner -appellant as its contractor. Bulk Systems sought for and obtained financial accommodation from Vijaya Bank, predicated on a General Power of Attorney executed by Bulk Systems in favour of the bank. Payments perceived to the contract between the petitioner and the Bulk Systems were routed through Vijaya bank. It will also be relevant to mention that on the instance of Bulk Systems, Vijaya Bank had issued bank guarantees in favour of the petitioner. One of the transactions between the several parties before us was inter -se Bulk Systems and Nirlons Ltd., towards the cost of supply of conveyor belt. It is also not disputed that a civil suit has been filed by Nirlons Ltd., against Bulk Systems in which the petitioner had also been arrayed as party.