Allowed

M/S Jaid Cold Storage v. Punjab State Electricity Board and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Feb 2011RSA/1799/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed appeals by the Electricity Board against orders in its favor regarding two electric connections alleged to be clubbed. The court upheld a finding of no physical separation, ordering restoration of the trial court judgment and holding connections clubbed for larger tariff. The firm's appeals were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Appeals filed by Electricity Board allowed; impugned orders set aside; trial court decrees restored. Appeals by firms dismissed with no order as to costs.

M/S Jaid Cold Storage Vs Punjab… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

r 6

Reqular Second Appeal Noe 4380 of 2005 Reclular Second Appeal Noa 4381 of 20 Reclular Second Apoeal Noe 1799 of 2008 and Reqular Second Aooeal Noe 1800 of 2008

¶6

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB 8 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶7

eee

¶8

1 Date of Decisionl Februarl 1⁷ 1 1 2011 0 Reqular Second Appeal Noe 4380 of 2005 0 I Punjab State Electricity Board and others Appeliants C5 I VERSUS Z Mlse Hemkunt Cold Storage Respondent 2 r Recular Second Aepeal Noa 4381 of 2005 I Z Punjab^State Electricity Board and others eee Appellants 10 VERSUS Cr m Z Mlse Jaid Cold Storage Respondent Qm

¶9

Reciular Second ApDeal Noe 1799 of 2008

¶10

Mlse^Jaid Cold Storage Appellant VERSUS unjab State Electricity Board and another Respondents

¶11

Reoular SecondAoDeal Noe1800Qf 20080

¶12

Parkash Om 2012.11.19 13: 59 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh

¶13

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

r 6 n4

0 C0 I 0 I Z

r I Z m

meo Z

Reclular Second Appeal Noe 4380 of 2005 Reqular Second Appeal No381 of 2005 Reqular Second Apoeal Noe 1799 of 2008 and Reqular Second Appeal Noe 1800 of 2008

¶26

Mlse^Hemkunt CoId Storage Appellant

¶27

¶28

VERSUS

¶29

Punjab^State Electricity^Board and another Respondents CORAM HONBLE MRJUSTICE MOHINDER PAL le Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment 7 2e To be referred to the Reporters or not 7 3e Whether the judgment should be reportedin the Digest⁷ Presentl Mr Sukhbir Singh Advocate for the PunjabState ElectricltyBoard appellantin Regular^Second AppealsNosA380^and 4381 of 2005 and respondent in Regular Second Appeal^Nos1799 and 1780 of 2008 Mr S4 Singla^Advocate for MlsaJaid CoId Storage appellant in ReguiarSecond Appeal No1799 of 2008 and respondentin RegularSecond Appeal NoA381 of 2005 and for MlsHemkunt ColdStorageappellantⁱⁿ RegularSecond Appeal No1800 of 2008 and respondentⁱⁿ RegularSecond Appeal No380 of 2005

¶30

MOHINDER PALz Je

¶31

This judgment will dispose of the afortated four appeals as the question involved therein is common ie whether Electric Connection NoSe22 and Electric Connection NoMS23

¶32

are to be treated as clubbedor not

¶33

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

Parkash Om 2012.11.19 13: 59 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh

V L

e e

V1J

r 0 0 I C5 Z r I Z CO 7 Z Ll

¶42

Reqular Second Apoeal Noe 4380 of 2005 Reaular Second Apoeal Noe 4381 of 2005 Reqular^Second Aooeal Noe 1799 of 2008 and Recluiar Second Appeal Noe 1800 of 2008

¶43

Punjab^State ElectricityBoard or short the Board which has filed Regular Second Appeals NosA380 and 4381 of 2005 has claimed that both these electric connections have to be treated as clubbed connections whereas in RegularSecond Appeals Nos 1799 and 1800 of 2008 filed by Mls Jaid CoId Storage and MlsHemkunt Cold Storage respectively the ciaim made is that these two electric conneaions are separate Units

¶44

RegularSecond Appeal NoA380 of 2005^hasbeenfiled by^the Board against^the judgment^and decree passedby^the Iower appellateCourt wherebythe judgment^anddecree passed by the trial Court dismissingthe suit filed by MlsHemkunt Cold Storage plaintiff thereir was set aside and the suit filed by Mls Hemkunt CoId Storage concerning the electrlcity charges^irl respectof Electric Connection^NoSe22 was decreed

¶45

ReguIar^Second Appeal NoA381 of 2005 has been Oled by^the Board against the judgment and decree passed by the Iower appellateCourt wherebythe judgment^and decree passed by the trial Court dismissingthe suit filed by Mlsaid Cold Storage plaintiff thereinl was set aside and the suit filed by MlsJaid Cold Storage concerning the electricity chargesⁱⁿ respect of EIectric Connection NoMS23 was decreed

¶46

Regular Second Appeal No1799 2008 has been filed by Mls Jaid Cold Storage against the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below where the suit filed by MlsJaid

¶47

ColdParkash Om2012.11.19Storage concerning the electricity charges in respect JOYTI RANI2016.03.28 15:59 of 13: 59True ScannedCopy Of Original I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document PHHC,Chandigarh

e4e

m r

j r 0 0 C5 I Z

Z OO 7 Z

Reqular Second Appeal Noe 4380 of 2005 Reqular Second Apoeal Noa 4381 of 2005 Reqular Second Appeal Noe 1799 of 2008 and Reqular Second Appeal No800 of 2008

¶57

Electric Connection NoS23 was dismissed

¶58

Regular^Second Appeal^No1800 of 2008 has been filed by Mls^Hemkunt Cold Storage against the judgmentsand decrees passed by^both the Courts below where the suit filed by MlsHemkunt Cold Storage concerning the charges^Ill respect of Electric Connection NoS22 was dismissed 1e

¶59

I have heard Mr Sukhbir Singh Advocate appearingfor the PunjabState Electricity^Board appellant Ill Regular Second AppealsNosA380^and 4381 of 2005 and respondentin Regular Second AppealNos1799 and 1780 of 2008 and Mr SK Singla Advocate appearing for Mls Jaid Cold Storage appellant in RegularSecond AppealNo1799 of 2008 and respondentin Regular Second Appeal NoA381 of 2005 and for Mls Hemkunt Cold Storage appellantⁱⁿ RegularSecond Appeal No1800 of 2008 and respondentⁱⁿ RegularSecond Appeal NoA380 of 2005 and have gone throughthe records of the case

¶60

At the outset it may be pointed out that the firms more than^one electric connection in the same usually^obtain premises to^avoid higher tariff In order to make the provision of clubbing the new connection in the same premises the Board had issued Commercial Circular Noe78195 vide Memorandum No918601926101SM268 dated 15901995 which for facility of reference IS reproducedas belowl

¶61

¶62

Subjectl Running o f more than one JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶63

Parkash Om 2012.11.19 13: 59 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh

6 s ere e

0 0 0

C5 P I

Z r I

Z Ioo 7 Z

Reqular Second Apoeal Non 4380 of 2005 Retlular Second Aopeal Noe 4381 of 2005 Reciuiar Second Appeal Noe 1799 of 2008 and Reqular Second Appeal Noe 1800 of 2008

¶74

connection in the same premises SMI268 It has been observed and experienced that existing instructions contained Itl SMIm268 are not being meticulousiy^followed and new connecOons in the same premises^are being given Such violations of the instructions are being pointed out repeatedlyby Accounts Audit as well^as Technical Audit Avoidance of higher voltage^Ievel supply has been pointed out by^the audit as a result of giving more than one connection in the same premises Instances have also been noticed where more tha n one connection has been given^Ill the^same premises to avoid highertariff AIso instructions issued Vide CC No2190 dated 12690 for avoiding circumvention of the instructions have not been very useful in curbing the tendency for a new connection in a premises carved out of the existing one or by purchasing^an adjoining Iande In order to make the provision of clubbing^and new connection in the^same premises errororoof it has been decided as

under

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶79

Parkash Om 2012.11.19 13: 59 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh

r 9

1 1

1 0 1 0 0 I C9 I Z 0 I C3 Z 4t lD 7 Om

¶86

Reqular Second Appeal Noe 4380 of 2005 Reqular Second ApPeal No1381 of 2005 Reqular Second Appeal Noa 1799 of 2008 and Reqular Second Aooeal Noe 1800 of 20080

¶87

il Where a ny person whether or not a member of the family partner director etc applies for a new connection in the same premises this should be allowed onlyif i ao there is physicalseparation and b also where the premlses in question are Iegally transferred sold^or Ieased to be the new unit and appropriate entry^exists In the munlclpalrecord regarding such transfere This implies that there should be a registered deed for Iease or sale and formal agreement of famlly partitionl^Iease etc should not be accepted ii XX XX XX

¶88

¶89

The firms in question^iee Mlse Jaid Cold Storage and Mls Hemkunt Cold Storage disputed the electricity bills sent by the Board^on the basis of LargeSupplyTariff after clubbing^Ioad of Eiectric Connection NoS23 installed In the name of MlsJaid Cold Storage and Electric Connection NoMSe22 installed in the^name of Mls Hemkunt Cold Storagealleging that both these Orms have no connection with each other The Board had earlier sent notices

¶90

toParkash Omboth these firms to get Eiectric Connection NoS22 and Electric JOYTI RANI 2012.11.19 2016.03.28 15:59 13: 59True ScannedCopy Of Original I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document PHHC,Chandigarh

¶91

I 4

1 C 0 0 I C5 I Z

3 Z CO aw Z ll

Reqular^Second Aooeal Non 4380 of 2005 Reqular Second Apoeal Noe 4381 of 2005 Reqular Second Aooeal Noa 1799 of²⁰⁰⁸ and Reqular Second Appeal Noe 1800 of 2008

¶97

ConnectionNoS23 clubbed but these firms did not get the connections clubbed despitethe clear instructiOns of the Board It may^be mentioned here that joint inspection of Electric Connection NoSm22 and Electric Connection NoS23 was done by the Director^Enforcement Punjab^State Electricity^Board Bathinda and SuperintendingEngineer Operation CircIe Faridkot on 281999 and the reportsubmitted by them reads as underl

¶98

tl Subjectle Joint inspectionAlc NoMSe 22 8 MS23 S LS3 by SElOpe Circle Farldkot and DirectorlEnf Bathinda on dated 28119990

¶99

There was a joint site inspection of subject cited premlsesunder Patto Hira Slngh subedivne No separation^was found existing at site Hence the two connections be treated as clubbed and chargedon LS tariff accordinglyThe site^sketch is preparedat site as per actualse Il

¶100

If Electric Connection NoS22 and Electric Connection NoI1Se23 are treated as having^been installed irl separate^unitS Medium Supply^Tariff IS chargeable and if these electric connections are treated as clubbed^ones LargeSupplyTariff IS

¶101

chargeableParkash Om The report submitted by the Director Enforcement JOYTI RANI 2012.11.19 2016.03.28 15:59 13: 59True ScannedCopy Of Original I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document PHHC,Chandigarh

n⁰⁸

1 r 1

1r 0 0 I C5 I Z

I tO Z m 7 Z

Reqular Second Appeal Noe 4380 of 2005 Reqular Second Appeal Noe 4381 of 2005 Reclular Second Apoeal Noe 1799 of 2008 and Reclular Second Appeal Noe 1800 of 2008

¶110

PunjabState Electricity^Board Bathinda and Superintending Engineer Operation Circle Faridkot after having a joint inspection on 281999 of Electric Connection NoMS22 and Electric Connection NoS23 reproduced^above appears to^be a fair repott There^was no rnalice on the part of highlyplaced oftlcers of the Board towards Mls Hemkunt Cold Storage and Mls Jaid Cold Storagewhich could have prompted them to give a false report against them This report of the higher omcers of the Board is an authentic one and an impeccablepieceof evidence belyingthe claim of Mls Hemkunt Cold Storageand Mls Jaid Cold Storage^This report submitted by the Director EnfOrcement Punjab^State Electricity Board Bathinda and SuperintendingEngineer Operation^Circle Faridkot after having a joint inspection on 281999 of EIectricConnection NoeMS22 and Electric Connection NoS23 in fact IS the clinching^factor However one cannot Iose sight of the fact that before releasing Electric Connection NoS22 and Electric Connection NoVlSe23 some oftlcials I officers of the Board must have inspected the premises of MlsHemkunt^CoId Storage and MlSe Jaid Cold Storage and must have helped the partners of these firms to get the necessary formalities required f6r the release of electric connections completed by conniving with them partners of these firmsl The Board is directed to identifythose omcers of the Board who had connived with the active partnersof

¶111

MlsHemkuntParkash Om Cold Storage and MlsJaid Cold Storage to initiate JOYTI RANI 2012.11.19 2016.03.28 15:59 13: 59True ScannedCopy Of Original I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document PHHC,Chandigarh

1 0 0 I C5

Z 2

t Z f 7 Z

Reqular Second Appeal Noe 4380 of²⁰⁰⁵ Reqular^Second Aoeal Noe 4381 of 2005 Reqular Second Appeal Non 1799 of 2008 and Reclular Second Aooeal Noa 1800 of 2008

¶119

disciplinaryproceedings^against them and to punish them in accordance with the reievant provisions of the service Iaws appllcableto the employeesof^theBoard

¶120

1 For the aforesaid reasons Regular^Second Appeal NoA380 of 2005 and Reguiar^Second Appeal1 o 4381 of 2005 filed by the Board are aliowed and the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Iower appeliateCourt are set aside and that of the trlal Court^are restored Regular^Second Appeal No1799 of²⁰⁰⁸ tlled by MlsJain CoId Storage and Regular Second Appeal No 1800 of 2008 filed by Mls Hemkunt Cold Storage^are hereby^dismissed being^without any merlt Decree sheets be prepared However there shall be no order as to costs The Registry^IS directed to place a copy of this judgment in Regular^Second Appeal^No 4381 of 2005 Regular^Second Appeal No 1799 of 2008 and Regular Second Appeal No 1800 of 2008 eache

¶121

February 1 1 1 2011
ak
ir
C9 f 9
Parkash Om
2012.11.19
13: 59
True Scanned
Copy Of Original
f49 PHHC,Chandigarh

¶122

i 1 C PALI JUDGE

¶123

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶124

n04

¶125

ee m3a

M/S Jaid Cold Storage v. Punjab State Electricity Board and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jaid Cold Storage v. Punjab State Electricity Board and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Kumar Vs Rohit Kumar

Nanak Chand & Another Vs Narinder Kumar & Another

(O&M) Surinder Singh Vs Vasakha Singh

Pal Singh Vs Ram Kumar

Pseb & Ors. Vs M/S Hemkunt Cold Storage

Pseb & Ors. Vs M/S Jaid Cold Storage