LAWS(P&H)-1992-12-94

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA Vs. M/S GURU NANAK GOLD STORAGE & ICE FACTORY, MAHILPUR AND ANOTHER

Decided On December 14, 1992
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA Appellant
V/S
GURU NANAK GOLD STORAGE And ICE FACTORY, MAHILPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board for permanent injunction restraining respondent No. 1 from initiating any arbitration proceedings in furtherance of notice dated August 1, 1985 and respondent No. 2 from proceeding with any arbitration proceedings was dismissed by the learned trial court. Its appeal also met the same fate. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the courts below, the Board has come to this court in the present second appeal. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The Board had given an electricity connection to respondent No. 1. The Board claimed that the respondent-consumer had failed to pay certain charges. The respondent No. 1 filed a suit for restraining the Board and its employees from recovering the arrears. This suit was dismissed in default. Even an application for the restoration of the suit failed. The Board then disconnected the supply of electricity to respondent No. 1. The Board then filed a suit against respondent No. 1 for the recovery of Rs. 2,29,813.25 paise. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for stay of the proceedings and reference of the dispute to the arbitrator. This application ultimately failed up to the Apex Court. In the meantime, respondent No. 1 served a notice dated August 1, 1985 claiming that it had suffered damages to the tune of Rs. 99,25,734.00 on account of the disconnection of electricity and loss of reputation etc. It called upon the Board to refer the matter to the arbitrator regarding the losses suffered by it. It was mentioned that respondent No. 1 had appointed respondent No. 2 as the Arbitrator. This led the Board to file the suit out of which the present second appeal has arisen.

(3.) The suit was contested by the first respondent only. Respondent No. 2 did not appear in spite of the notice having been served on him and was proceeded against ex parte. On the pleadings of the parties the learned trial court framed the following issues :-