GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LTD. Vs. GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of taking out this judge's summons, the applicant Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. (GAEL for short) has prayed that the name of the applicant -company be entered into the register of the Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB for short) as the consumer in respect of connection No. 33222without requiring the applicant to pay an additional security deposit. It is further prayed that applicant -company be treated as the consumer of the GEB for the purpose of the aforesaid connection.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel Mrs. Soparkar for the applicant -company and Ms. Shraddha Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the GEB. Since the court was personally interested in knowing the mathematical technicality, if any, in the scheme of the GEB, learned counsel appearing for the GEB was asked to keep a responsible officer of the Board present before this court and accordingly, Shri Bhupendra Joshi, Executive Engineer of the concerned area of the GEB appeared before the court and assisted the court in relation to the mathematics normally applied in calculating and fixing the security deposit etc. and the policy of the GEB qua enhancement of the security deposit, at ay time during the life of the contract.

(3.) MRS . Soparkar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant -company mainly relies on the scheme of amalgamation of both the companies under the Companies Act, 1956, and the relevant provisions of the said Act. She has analysed relevant law of amalgamation and merger and has pointed out that technically, two companies can be termed as transferor and transferee -company. However, under the concept of amalgamation, GAPL has amalgamated with GAEL. It is not a matter of dispute that the applicant -company has not asked for any additional load in supply of electricity. That the same management of both these companies is handling the affairs after amalgamation order passed by the court, and is dealing with the assets and liabilities of GAPL, viz., because of the effect of order of amalgamation passed by this court. The facts and circumstances of the case indicate that the demand raised by the GEB topay additional security deposit amount is unjustified and enhancement cannot be said to be in accordance with rules and regulations. It is further submitted that this is not a case of voluntary transfer of the undertaking, but this is a case of amalgamation under the orders of the court. Opponent GEB, after orders of amalgamation passed by this court, is bound to recognise the applicant -company as the consumer of electricity supply in the place of GAPL. Under the scheme of amalgamation the whole of the undertaking of GAPL and other interest in or arising out of the properties of GAPL has vested in the applicant -company. So, this is a case of vesting of a right and not of transfer of a right or property. It is rightly contended by the applicant that there is no question of any transfer taking place in fact or in law.