PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. OSWAL ALLOYS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 2.5.1996 passed by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. By this judgment, the learned Additional District Judge has set aside the judgment dated 24.4.1995 passed by the learned trial Court and has decreed the suit of the respondent- plaintiff. Notice of motion in this appeal was issued to the respondents.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff company is a regular consumer of Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'PSEB') in relation to electric connection No. LS 49. Initially the sanctioned load in favour of the plaintiff was 1260 KVA. The plaintiff company submitted an application for additional load in May 1986 and a provisional demand notice dated 30.11.1987 was issued by the PSEB on the basis of which a sum of Rs. 887354/- was deposited by the plaintiff company. This amount was deposited with the clear understanding that it shall be adjusted towards the actual costs of additional load of 1699-909 KW and a true and correct account of this amount would be furnished by PSEB to the plaintiff. Thereafter PSEB raised an additional demand of Rs. 265940/- towards the costs of additional load. The said additional demand of Rs. 265940/- was challenged by the plaintiff company in the suit filed before the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Ludhiana. The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 24.4.1995 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff company. The said judgment passed by the learned trial Court was challenged by the plaintiff company in the Court of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, who vide his judgment dated 2.5.1996 set aside the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The aforesaid judgment dated 2.5.1996 has been challenged by PSEB in the present appeal.

(3.) MR . Puri, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- plaintiff company submitted that mere fact that special statute provides for certain remedies, itself does not exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. He submitted that in the present case the orders for the additional demand passed by the officer concerned were not in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and since these orders were passed in excess of the jurisdiction, the same were rightly challenged by the respondent company in the civil Court. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the following judgments of the Supreme Court :- 1. Firm of Illuri Subbayya Chetty and Sons v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 322. 2. Dr. Rajendra Prakash Sharma v. Gyan Chandra and others, AIR 1980 SC 1206. 3. Sarswati and others v. Lachanna (dead) through L.R.s.' 1994(1) Civil Court Cases 611. 4. M.P. Electricity Board, Jabalplur v. M/s. Vijaya Timber Co., 1997(2) RCR (Civil) 44.