LAWS(PAT)-2015-8-172

M/S J.M.D. ALLOYS LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT USHA COMPLEX, KANKARBAGH ROAD, PATNA AND HAVING ITS FACTORY AT DEOKULI, BIHTA THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI SANJAY GUPTA Vs. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT, 1990 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BAILEY ROAD, PATNA, P.S. KOTWALI, IN TOWN AND DISTRICT OF PATNA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN

Decided On August 11, 2015
M/S J.M.D. Alloys Limited, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At Usha Complex, Kankarbagh Road, Patna And Having Its Factory At Deokuli, Bihta Through Its Director And Authorised Signatory Sri Sanjay Gupta Appellant
V/S
The Bihar State Electricity Board, A Body Constituted Under The Indian Electricity Act, 1990 Having Its Office At Bailey Road, Patna, P.S. Kotwali, In Town And District Of Patna Through Its Chairman Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Letters Patent Appeal, which has come to be registered as L.P.A. No.44 of 2014, is directed against the judgment and order, dated 23.12.2013, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, in C.W.J.C. No. 6490 of 2003, dismissing the writ petition.

(2.) In the writ petition aforementioned, the petitioner sought for directions to be issued to the respondents not to take any steps, including steps under Sec. 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, for the purpose of recovery of past dues of the petitioner and to restore electric connection to facilitate the proceedings pending before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SICA’).

(3.) After ten years of filing of the writ petition aforementioned and just before its hearing in the year 2013, the ambit of the relief was sought to be enlarged by filing I.A. No. 5054 of 2013 seeking quashing of the energy bill, dated 18.04.2003 (Annexure-2), whereby the demand was raised from Rs. 8 Crores and odd to more than Rs. 16 crores, which was also subject of challenge in Title Suit No. 65 of 2013.