PANIPAT ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a first appeal against an order of Shri Onkar Parkash Sharma, Senior subordinate Judge, Karnal, dated 28-8-1958, staying the plaintiff-appellant's suit under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are as under : The plaintiffs Messrs. Panipat electric Supply Company, Limited, were granted "the Panipat Electric Licence 1934", vide Notification No. 826-Elec. . published in the Government Gazette, punjab, dated Friday, 20-7-1934. The period of licence was originally fixed at 15 years nut was later extended by another five years. According to the plaintiffs, the licence must be deemed to have been granted on 20-7-1934. when the notification regarding the same was published in the Government Gazette vide Rules 19 and 20 framed under the Indian Electricity Act. According to the defendants, the date of the grant of the licence must be taken to be 17-7-1934, when it was actually granted and not 20-7-1934, when the notification regarding its grant was pub-lished in the Gazette. On 4-7-1952, the state of Punjab served a notice on the plaintiffs, vide Memo No. 209-EI-52/31298. dated 4-7-1952, from the Secretary to the Government, Punjab, P. W. D. , Electricity branch, Simla, which reads as under :

(3.) ON 15-7-1957, the plaintiffs filed the present suit against (1) The State of punjab, defendant No. 1, (2) Shri J. R. Handa, defendant No. 2, and (3) Shri S. S. Kumar, defendant No. 3, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,88,371-4-0, The main allegations made in the plaint were that the various, notices served on them and referred to above were illegal and ultra vires, that the State Government was not authorised to take over the undertaking of the plaintiffs, that the action of the defendants in taking over the concern on the night between the 16th and 17th july, 1954, was illegal, highhanded, malicious and tortious, that the Government had, at any rate, no power to assume possession before the expiry of the period of licence on 20-7-1954, that all the three defendants were jointly and severally liable to pay damages to the plaintiffs to the extent of the amount in suit on account of their various tortious acts as described in the plaint. The claim in suit consisted of the following items :