SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER MADURAI ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE MADURAI Vs. NELCO METAL PRODUCTS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. S. No. 1262 of 1981 was filed by the defendant who is the consumer of electricity for declaration that demand notice issued by the department for payment of minimum charges of electricity as per the agreement between the defendant and the Board is not valid and for quashing the demand notice. The said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. Against that, the defendant filed first appeal in A. S. No. 130 of 1989.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the proceedings stated earlier, there was another demand notice issued by the department demanding payment of minimum charges. To prevent disconnection of electricity supply, the defendant filed another suit in O. S. N o. 51 of 1984 for declaration that the demand notice was invalid and for consequential prayer not to disconnect the electricity supply. The said suit was also dismissed by the Trial Court. Against that A. S. No. 147 of 1987 was filed by the defendant. The first Appellate Court heard both the appeals viz. A. S. Nos. 130 of 1989 and 147 of 1987 together and passed a common judgment.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent araued that the Supreme Court in the decision of M/s Eastern Electronics ( Delhi ) Ltd, Faridabad and others v. The State of Haryana and another , 1976 (2) SCC 878 has held that when the Electricity Board imposes power cut and was not able to supply the full requirement to the consumer under the contracts, the Board is entitled to get only the proportionate reduced charges. It held that: in such a situation the amount of duty payable will be on the actual amount of demand charge realisable from the consumer after the proportionate reduction of the tariff.