Allowed

Pseb & Ors. v. M/S Hemkunt Cold Storage

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Feb 2011RSA/4380/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab State Electricity Board appealed against two previous appellate decisions declaring its two electric connections as separate units. The Supreme Court held no physical separation existed at the site and allowed the Board's appeals to club the connections for Large Supply Tariff.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgments and decrees of the lower appellate courts were set aside and those of the trial court were restored.

Pseb & Ors. Vs M/S Hemkunt Cold Storage — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

429

0 Ca I C5 I

Z m 7 Z

Reqular Second Appeal No4380 of 2005 Reqular Second Appeal Non 4381 of 2005 Reqular Second Apoeal Non 1799 of 2008 and Reqular Second Appeal Noe 1800 of 2008

¶8

¶9

Mlsn Hemkunt Cold Storage Appellant VERSUS 4 Punjab^State Electricity^Board and another Respondents CORAM HONBLE MRJUSTICE MOHINDER PAL 1e Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment 7 2 To^bereferredto the Reporters or not7 3e Whether the judgment^should be reportedin the Digest⁷

¶10

Presentl Mr Sukhbir Singh Advocate for the PunjabState ElectricityBoard appellantⁱⁿ Regular^Second Appeals^NosA380and 4381 of 2005 and respondent^Ill Regular^Second Appeal^Nos1799 and 1780 of 2008

¶11

Mre SeK Singla Advocate for MlsJaid^Cold Storage appellantⁱⁿ ReguIar^Second Appeal^No1799of 2008 and respondentin Regular^Second Appeal^{NoA381of2005and} for Mls Hemkunt Cold Storage appellant^In RegularSecondAppealN01800 of 2008 and respondentⁱⁿ Regular^Second Appeai^NoA380 of 2005

¶12

MOHINDER PAL J

¶13

This judgment wili dispose of the aforestated four

¶14

appeais^as the question^involved therein is common i^e whether

¶15

Electric Connection NoS22 and Electric Connection Nov23

¶16

KUMAR SURESH areSHAM LAL2012.07.18 15: 05to be treated as clubbed or not Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh

¶17

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

430

1 C 0 0 I C5

Z m mno Z

Reqular Second Appeal No380 of 2005 Reqular Second Appeal Noe 4381 of 2005 Reqular Second Apoeal Non 1799 of 2008 and Reqular Second Apoeal No 1800 of 2008

¶26

PunjabState Electricity^Board short the Boardl which has filed Regular^Second Appeais NosA380^and4381 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 Cold Storage and MlseHemkunt Cold Storage respectively the claim made is that these two electric connections are separate Units

¶27

Regular^Second Appeal^NoA380 of 2005 has been filed by^the Board against^the judgment^and decree passedby^the Iower appellateCourt whereby^the judgment^and decree passed by^the trial Court dismissingthe suit filed by MlsHemkunt^Cold Storage plaintiff thereinl was set aside and the su it filed by MlsHemkunt Cold Storage concerningthe electricity charges^Ill respectof Electric Connection NoMS22 was decreed

¶28

Regular^Second Appeal NoA381 of 2005 has been filed by^the Board against the judgment^and decree passedby^the Iower appellateCourt whereby^the judgment^and decree passed by^the trial Courtdismissingthe suit filed by MlsJaid Cold Storage plaintiff thereinJ^was set aside and the suit filed by Mlsaid Cold Storage concerning^the electricity charges Ill respect^of EIectric Connection NoS23 was decreed

¶29

Regular^Second Appeal^No1799of 2008 has been filed by Mls Jaid Cold Storage against the judgments^and decrees

¶30

passedbyKUMAR SURESHSHAM LAL^{boththeCourts} below where the suit filed by Mlsaid JOYTI RANI2016.03.28 16:01 Cold2012.07.18 15: 05Scanned TrueCopy of OriginalStorage concerning the electricity chargesⁱⁿ respect I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document^of PHHC,Chandigarh

431

1 0 0 I C5 I

Z 0

Z m W2 Z tl

Reaular Second APoeal Noa 4380 of 2005 Reqular Second Aooeal No381 of 2005 Reclular Second Appeal Noe 1799 of 2008 and Reclular Second Aooeal Noe 1800 of 2008

¶39

Electric Connection NoSe23 was dismissed

¶40

Regular^Second Appeal No¹⁸⁰⁰ of 2008 has been filed by Mls^HemkuntCold Storageagainst^the judgments^anddecrees passed by^both the Cou rts below where the su it fi led by MlsHemkunt Cold Storage concerningthe electricity chargesⁱⁿ respectof Electric Connection NoMS22 was dismissed

¶41

I^haveheard Mr Sukhbir Singh Advocate appearingfor the Punjab^State Electricity^Board appeliantⁱⁿ Regular^Second Appeals NosA380^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 Regular^Second Appeal^No1799of 2008 and respondentin Regular Second AppealNo4381 of^2005and for Mls Hemkunt Cold Storage appellantⁱⁿ Regular^Second AppealNo1800 of 2008 and respondent^Itl Regular^Second AppealNoA380 of 2005 and have gone through the records of the case

¶42

At the outset it may be pointed out that the firms usually^obtain more than one electric connection in the same premisesto^avoid higher^tariff In order to make the provision of clubbing the new connection in the same premises the Board had issued Commercial Circular No78195 vide Memorandum No918601926101SMI08 dated 15091995 which for facilityof reference IS reproducedas belowl

¶43

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and Subjectl Ruⁿⁿ ing of more thaⁿ integrity of this document one

¶44

KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.07.18 15: 05 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh

432

ee5

0 C43

C5 I

Z r

m Z Qm

Reqular Second Apoeal Noe 4380 of 2005 Reqular Second APpeal Noe 4381 of 2005 Reclular Second Aopeal No799 of 2008 and Reqular Second Aopeal No800 of 2008

¶57

connection in the same premises SMI2680 It has been observed and experienced that existing instructions contained Itl SMI268 are not being meticulously^followed and new connecons in the sarne premises^are beinggiven Such violations of the instructions are being pointedout repeatedlyby Accounts Audit as well^as Technical Audit Avoidance of higher voltage^Ievel su pply 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 than^one connection has been given^Ill the^same premisesto^avoid highertariff Also instructions issued Vide CC No32190 dated 1260 for avoiding circumvention of the instructions have not been usefu1ⁱⁿ very curbing the tendency for a new connection in a premises carved out of the existing^one or by pu rchasing^an adjoining Iand In order to make the provision of clubbing^and new connection in the same premises errorproof it has been decided JOYTI RANI as 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and underl integrity of this document

¶58

KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.07.18 15: 05 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh

433

0 0 I C5 I

Ct I

Z m 7Z Qw

Reqular Second Aopeal No1380 of 2005 Reclular Second Appeal No1381 of 2005 Reqular Second Appeal No799 of 2008 and Reqular Second Appeal Noe 1800 of 20080

¶68

Where any^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 oniy^if

¶69

a there IS physicalseparation and to9 aiso where the premises In question are Iegally^transferred sold^or Ieased to be the^new unit and appropriate entry exists in the municipal^record regarding such transfer This implies that there should be a registered^deed for Iease or sale and formal agreement of family partitionl^Iease etc should not be accepted

¶70

The firms in question i e Mls Jaid Cold Storage and Mls Hemkunt Cold Storage disputed the eiectricity^bills sent by the Board^on the basis of LargeSupplyTariff after clubbingIoad of Electric Connection NoMSe23 installed in the name of Mlsaid Cold Storage and Electric Connection NoS22 installed in the^name of Mls Hemkunt Cold Storagealleging that both these firms have

¶71

no connection with each other The Board had earlier sent notices JOYTI RANI KUMAR SURESHSHAM LAL 2016.03.28 16:01 to both2012.07.18 15: 05Scanned TrueCopy of Originalthese firms to get Electric Connection No MS22 and Electric I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document PHHC,Chandigarh

434

1 0 0 I C5 I

Z m Z7 0

Reclular Second Appeal Noa 4380 of 2005 Reqular Second Appeal Noe 4381 of 20050 Reqular Second Apoeal Noe 1799 of 2008 and Reqular Second Appeal Noe 1800 of 2008

¶79

Connection NoS3 clubbed but these firms did not get the connections clubbed despite the clear instructions of the Board It may^be mentioned here that joint inspection of Electric Connection NoMSm22 and Electric Connection NoSe23 was done by^the Director Enforcement PunjabState ElectricityBoard Bathinda and Superintending Engineer Operation Circle Faridkot on 28 1999 and the report submitted by them reads as under1

¶80

Il Subject Joint inspectionAlc NoS 22 8 MS23 8 LSe3 by SElOp Circle Faridkot and DirectorlEnf Bathinda on dated 2811999

¶81

There was a joint site inspection of subject^cited premisesunder Patto Hira Singh subdivn No separation^was found existing at site Hence the two connections be treated as clubbed and chargedon LS tariff accordingly^The site^sketch is prepared at^site as per actuals Il

¶82

If Electric Connection NoS22 and Electric Connection NoMS23 are treated as having^{beeninstailed} in separate^units Medium Supply^Tariff IS chargeable and if these electric

¶83

connectionsKUMAR SURESHSHAM LAL^are treated as clubbed^ones LargeSupply^Tariff JOYTI RANI2016.03.28 16:01 is chargeable2012.07.18 15: 05Scanned TrueCopy of Original^Thereport submitted by the Director Enforcement I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document PHHC,Chandigarh

435

r 0 0 I C5 I Z

I t Z

m 7 Z Om

Reqular Second Appeal Noe 4380 of 2005 Reqular Second Appeal Noe 4381 of 2005 Reqular Second Aopeal No799 of 2008 and RecIular Second Appeal Noe 1800 of 2008

¶90

Punjab^State Electricity^Board Bathinda and Superintending Engineer OperationCircle Faridkot after having a joint inspection on 281999 of Electric Connection NoMS22 and Electric Connection NoMS23 reproduced^above appears^tobe a fair report There was no malice on the part of highlyplaced officers of the Board towards Mls Hernkunt Cold Storage and Mls Jaid Cold Storage which could have prompted^them to give a false report against them This report of the higher officers of the Board is an authentic one and an impeccable piece of evidence belying the claim of Mls Hemkunt Cold Storage and Mls Jaid Coid Storage This report submitted by the Director Enforcement Punjab^State Electricity Board Bathinda and SuperintendingEngineer Operation^{CircIeFaridkot} after having a joint inspection on 2811999 of Electric Connection NoSa22 and Electric Connection NoSe23 in fact IS the clinching factor However one cannot Iose sight of the fact that before releasing Electric Connection NoS22 a nd EIectric Con nection NoMSe23 some officials 1 officers of the Board must have inspected the premises of MlsHemkunt Cold Storage and Mls Jaid Cold Storage and must have helped the partners of these firms to get the necessary formalities required for the release of electric connec8ons completed by^con niving with them partners^ofthesefirms The Board^iS directed to identify^those

¶91

officersKUMAR SURESHSHAM LALof the Board who^hadconnived with the active partners JOYTI RANI2016.03.28 16:01 of MlsHemkunt2012.07.18 15: 05Scanned TrueCopy of Original Cold Storage and Mls Jaid Cold Storage to initiate I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document PHHC,Chandigarh

436

1 0 0 I t5

Z 0

QO 2 Z

Reqular Second Apoeal No380 of 2005 Reclular Second Apoeal Noa 4381 of 2005 Reaular Second Appeal Noe 1799 of 2008 and Reqular Second Appeal Noe 1800 of 20080

¶101

disciplinary proceedings against^them and to punish them i^rl accordance with the relevant provisions of the service Iaws applicable^to the employeesof the Board

¶102

For the aforesaid reasons Regular^Second Appeal NoA380 of 2005 and Regular^Second Appeal No 4381 of 2005 filed by^the Board are aI^lowed and the im pugned j udg^ments and decrees passed by the Iower appellateCourt are set aside and that of the trial Court are restored Regular^Second Appeal No 1799 of²⁰⁰⁸ filed by Mls Jain Cold Storage and Regular Second Appeal No 1800 of 2008 filed by Mls Hemkunt Cold Storage^are hereby^dismissed being^without any^merit Decree sheets be prepared However there shall be no order as to costs The Registry^IS directed to place a copy of this judgment ill Regular^Second Appeal^No 4381 of²⁰⁰⁵ Regular^Second Appeal No 1799 of^2008and Regular^Second Appeal No 1800 of 2008 each

¶103

February I7 1 2011
ak
1 YV
008 KUMAR SURESHSHAM LAL
2012.07.18 15: 05
Scanned True
1 1 Copy of Original
PHHC,Chandigarh

¶104

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Pseb & Ors. v. M/S Hemkunt Cold Storage

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pseb & Ors. v. M/S Hemkunt Cold Storage

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

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 Jaid Cold Storage

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