M S CHAWLA AND CO Vs. DESU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [Ed. facts: Petitioner is manufacturing electronic goods. DESU was supplier of electricity to its factory. Petitioner alleges that meter got defective in Sept., 1988 and upto 21.7.90, DESU carried out 4 surprise inspections and he had deposited Rs. 250.00 as Meter Testing Fee. A joint inspection team of DESU visited the factory on 13.11.90 and reported 'Suspected fraudulent abstraction of energy'. On 27.3.91, DESU sent a bill of more than Rs. 67 lakh for period May, 1989 to Nov., 1990 directing payment by 12-4-91 and upon failing disconnection u/S. 24 (1) of Electricity Act. Petitioner challenged the claim on many grounds, one of which is that u/S. 26, DESU cannot ask for more than 6 months if meter is defective and asked for reference of dispute to arbitration. DESU contended that it was a case of theft and could not be so referred. Petitioner applied for interim injunction. After detailing facts, Judgments is :

(2.) THE petitioner has alleged vide para 3 of their petition that there is an agreement in between the petitioner and the respondent for the supply of electricity which contains an arbitration clause to the effect that in case of any dispute in between the parties the matter would be referred to arbitration and the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 shall apply to any such arbitration. THE respondent in the corresponding para of their W/S have no-where denied the factum of the arbitration agreement. THEy have simply contented themselves by alleging that the alleged disputes raised in the petition cannot be referred to arbitration. It is manifest from above that they did not deny the factum of the arbitration agreement with clause 25 therein. THE petitioner through the institution of the present petition have prime- facie raised certain disputes mentioned in the petition. In case this court comes to the conclusion ultimately that the said disputes are covered by clause 25 of the agreement in that eventuality the matter will have to be referred to arbitration. Hence, it becomes necessary for that purpose to maintain status quo till then. In any case there are prima facie disputes in between the parties raised through the present petition which need investigation. Hence, it would be in the fitness of things to direct the parties to maintain status quo till the said disputes are resolved through an adjudication by an arbitrator.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent Mr. Aswani Kumar has contended that the present case is a case of fraudulent abstraction of electricity. In case an injunction is granted then it would be tantamount to putting premium on the mistakes of the petitioner. According to learned counsel the petitioner is responsible for bringing about a situation and as such he cannot be allowed to take advantage thereof. He should be made to drink as he has brewed. There is no dispute with the said proposition of law. However, the learned counsel while advancing the said argument is oblivious of the fact that the above defence of the respondent is simply an argument based on suspicion. It would be pre-mature to adjudicate finally upon the rights of the parties at this stage. Interim injunction confirmed.