Partly allowed

Indsur Global Limited through Authorised Signatory/Legal Officer Manisha Vyas v. Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited

Gujarat HC9 Oct 2019SCA/13818/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a petition seeking quashing of an electricity disconnection notice and for payment installments. Balancing the petitioner's financial distress against national directives for recovery, the court granted a time-bound payment plan for outstanding dues but upheld the right to charge delayed payment fees.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay immediate dues and balance in six installments by 31.03.2020; respondent allowed to charge delayed payment interest; breach permits immediate disconnection.

Indsur Global Limited through Authorised… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

C/SCA/13818/2019 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13818 of 2019

¶4

==========================================================

¶5

INDSUR GLOBAL LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORISED SIGNATORY/LEGAL OFFICER MANISHA VYAS

¶6

Versus MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED

¶7

==========================================================

¶8

Appearance:

¶9

MR.ANSHIN DESAID, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR.RUSHABHA SHAH (7594) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶10

==========================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

¶12

Date : 09/10/2019

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

1.Mr.Anshin Desai, learned Senior Counsel
appearing with Mr.Rushabh Shah, learned advocate for
the petitioner has tendered draft amendment dated
14.08.2019 duly supported by the affidavit of one
Mr.Amit Suresh Lodha, who is stated to be Director of
the petitioner-Company. The same is ordered to be
taken on record.

¶15

2.The petitioner has prayed for quashing and
setting aside the notice dated 12.07.2019 and further
prayed to declare that the action of respondent in
discontinuing supply of electricity to the factory
premises of the petitioner-Company situated at
R.S.No.82, 84, 85 and 111, Noorpura, Po.Baska,
Ta:Halol bearing contract/cousumer no.41240 is ex
facie bad in law and contrary to Section 56 of the
Electricity Act, 2003.

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

C/SCA/13818/2019 ORDER

¶18

3. This Court (Coram:A.Y.Kogje, J.) on 09.08.2019, passed the following order:-

¶19

“ NOTICE returnable on 14th AUGUST 2019.

¶20

1. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the bill has been raised demanding the amount of Rs.3,06,77,678.39/- in the last bill dated 01.07.2019. After the said bill, the petitioner has proceeded to pay an amount of Rs.76,02,950/- and now only amount pending is Rs.2,30,74,728.39. The petitioner is ready and willing to deposit further amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with the Electric Company forthwith.

¶21

2. Learned advocate has brought to the notice of this Court precarious situation faced by the company, where on one hand on account of default in payment to the petitioner by BHEL, the financial condition of the petitioner was damaged. Further, the petitioner is having a running contract with the Indian Railways for supply of “Spheroidal Graphite Caste Iron Insert” which is a special contract in itself. The action of disconnection of power supply is on 29.07.2019 despite the petitioner being in arrear since April 2016 where the respondent Electric Company has permitted the connection by receiving payment against the bill issued every month.

¶22

3. Learned advocate draws attention of this Court to the statement produced today on record which indicates that from the month of April 2016 till June 2019, the petitioner is shown to be in arrears and still the payment is received and electric supply is continued.

¶23

4. In view of the aforesaid situation, as the disconnection has resulted in closing down of the complete manufacturing activity and rendering around 400 workmen jobless, it would be appropriate to direct restoration of the connection forthwith to the petitioner company. On or before the returnable date. The Director of the petitioner shall file an undertaking before this Court with regard to the repayment that the petitioner proposes towards the pending electrical dues.

¶24

Direct Service is permitted today.”

¶25

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner

¶26

Page 2 of 6

¶27

C/SCA/13818/2019 ORDER

¶28

deposited Rs.5,00,000/- and the electric connection
of the petitioner was restored. The petitioner has
also filed an undertaking on 13.08.2019 stating that
the petitioner shall pay the balance outstanding by
31.03.2020. The petitioner has also undertaken that
the petitioner-Company shall pay the amount towards
monthly electric usage charges from 01.07.2019 as and
when raised by the respondent-Company.

¶29

5.Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that there was a delay in payment of
regular bills raised by the respondent-Company for
about 9 days in the months of July, August and
September,2019. However, the said bills were paid by
the petitioner-Company.

¶30

6. With regard to the bill raised on 03.10.2019, the
same is for Rs.39,15,057.62 for regular monthly
electronic charges and for delayed payment of
Rs.03,05,197.95/-, and thereby, total amount comes to
Rs.42,20,255.57/-. It was further submitted that the
said amount of Rs.42,20,255.57 shall be paid on or
before 17.10.2019 though the due date mentioned in
the bill is 14.10.2019. He prayed time for 3 mere
days to pay the said amount in view of wages being
paid on 14.10.2019 by the petitioner-Company.

¶31

7. On perusal of the bill produced at Annexure-D
dated 03.10.2019, it appears that there is total
outstanding arrear of Rs.1,99,40,923.34/- and
accordingly, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner submitted that six installments be granted

¶32

Page 3 of 6

¶33

C/SCA/13818/2019 ORDER

¶34

to the petitioner-Company, as stated herein below to
clear the said outstanding dues on or before
31.03.2020.

¶35

`Installments`	`Date`	`Amount`	`Balance O/s`
`1`	`25`^th`-28`^th`October`	`20,00,000/-`	`1,79,40,923/-`
`2`	`20`^th`-25`^th`November`	`30,00,000/-`	`1,49,40,923/-`
`3`	`20`^th`-25`^th`December`	`35,00,000/-`	`1,14,40,923/-`
`4`	`20`^th`-25`^th`January`	`35,00,000/-`	`79,40,923/-`
`5`	`20`^th`-25`^th`February`	`40,00,000/-`	`39,40,923/-`
`6`	`20`^th`-25`^th`March`	`39,40,923/-`	`0`

¶36

8. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the
respondents are charging interest for delayed payment
in the monthly bills which the petitioner shall
continue to pay on the due date of each month.

¶37

9. Ms.Lilu Bhaya, learned advocate for the respondent
no.1 has invited the attention of this Court to the
affidavit-in-reply, more particularly, Paragraph
No.24 thereof to point out that Government of India,
Ministry of Power issued order dated 28.06.2019, and
thereafter, circular dated 17.07.2019 to all
generating and distribution companies across India.
In turn Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd – the holding
Company of the respondent herein issued circular
dated 30.07.2019. The said circular is issued for
recovery of whole dues from the consumer in time.
Pursuant to the circular issued by the Government of
India, Ministry of Power ensures to supply
uninterrupted power supply in the State. It was,
therefore, submitted that no sympathy is required to
be shown to the petitioner even for a day to make the

¶38

Page 4 of 6

¶39

C/SCA/13818/2019 ORDER

¶40

payment of outstanding dues. It was further submitted
that if such relief is granted to each of the
consumer then it would be difficult for the
respondent to continue uninterrupted power supply as
per circular of the Government of India. She,
therefore, submitted that no installments be granted
to the petitioner and petitioner should be asked to
pay the entire amount in one installment so as to
achieve the object of the aforesaid circular.

¶41

10. Having heard the learned advocates for the
respective parties as well as in view of the order
passed by this Court at the time of issuance of
notice and by taking into consideration the fact that
disconnection of the petitioner unit would result in
closing down of complete manufacturing activity and
rendering around 400 workmen jobless, it would be in
the interest of petitioner as well as respondent to
pass the following order:-

¶42

A.The petitioner shall pay an amount of
Rs.42,20,255.57/- on or before 17.10.2019.

¶43

B.The amount of Rs.1,99,40,923.34/- shall be paid
by six installments by the petitioner as under:-

¶44

`Installments`	`Date`	`Amount`	`Balance O/s`
`1`	`25`^th`-28`^th`October`	`20,00,000/-`	`1,79,40,923/-`
`2`	`20`^th`-25`^th`November`	`30,00,000/-`	`1,49,40,923/-`
`3`	`20`^th`-25`^th`December`	`35,00,000/-`	`1,14,40,923/-`
`4`	`20`^th`-25`^th`January`	`35,00,000/-`	`79,40,923/-`
`5`	`20`^th`-25`^th`February`	`40,00,000/-`	`39,40,923/-`
`6`	`20`^th`-25`^th`March`	`39,40,923/-`	`0`

¶45

C.The respondent shall charge regularly the

¶46

Page 5 of 6

¶47

C/SCA/13818/2019 ORDER

¶48

delayed payment charges on the outstanding amount and
the same shall be paid by the petitioner-Company
along with regular bill on the due date without fail.

¶49

D.An undertaking shall be filed by the Managing
Director of the petitioner-Company (i) that the
petitioner-Company shall pay an amount of
Rs.42,20,255.57/- on or before 17.10.2019 and (ii)
shall regularly pay the installments as stated in
abovetableforoutstandingduesof
Rs.1,99,40,923.34/- and (iii) also pay the delayed
payment charges to be levied by the respondent-
Company along with regular bills to be raised hence
forth on the due date without fail (iv) any breach of
the conditions, as stated herein above, shall permit
the respondent to disconnect the power supply
immediately (v) no further time shall be sought by
the petitioner-Company in any circumstance.

¶50

With the aforesaid directions and the
undertaking to be filed by the Managing Director of
the petitioner-Company within one week from today,
the present petition stands disposed of. Notice is
discharged.

¶51

(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)

¶52

GIRISH

¶53

Page 6 of 6

Indsur Global Limited through Authorised Signatory/Legal Officer Manisha Vyas v. Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indsur Global Limited through Authorised Signatory/Legal Officer Manisha Vyas v. Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mangubhai Kikabhai Aahir Vs the State of Gujarat

Mehul Parsottambhai Sangani Vs State of Gujarat

Harindar Kalara Vs State of Gujarat

Rathwa Rajubhai Bachalabhai Vs State of Gujarat, through Chief Secretary

Agriculture Produce Market Committee Patan Vs State of Gujarat

Associated Construction Corporation Vs Union of India