In this second appeal, the High Court dismissed the appellants' challenge to the lower courts' finding that a power utility could not deny electricity connection to a new entity due to debts owed by a different entity at a non-identical premises.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 433 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.1.2012.
U.H.B.V.N. Ltd. & another
--Appellants
Versus
Associated Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. --Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present:Mr. K.S. Malik, Advocate for the appellants.
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J
The defendants-appellants are in second appeal before this Court.
The plaintiff-respondent namely M/s Associated Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) filed a suit for mandatory injunction in terms of pleading that it was a company registered under the Company Act, 1956 and carried out its business as a manufacturer, producer, refiner, exporter, importer and dealer in petroleum products. The premises of the company was located on the Delhi-Rohtak Road and within the revenue estate of Sampla, District Rohtak. The company had been provided with an electric connection for the purpose of carrying on its business and the electricity charges had been paid regularly and on time. It was pleaded that in the year 1997-1998 the company had suspended its business and had surrendered the electric meter. Accordingly, the defendants-appellants had disconnected the electricity connection and at that point of time no amount was outstanding towards electricity charges from the company. Thereafter, when the company wished to commence operations again and applied for an electric connection, the defendants-
RSA No. 433 of 2012 (O&M)
-2-
appellants issued memo no.2011 dated 12.7.2006 alleging that electricity charges of M/s Lord Plywood amounting to Rs.2,24,342/- were due and as such the electric connection could not be granted. The company pleaded that M/s Lord Plywood was a separate entity and was carrying out its operations from some other premises, having a separate Board of Directors and as such had no concern with the plaintiff-company. As the defendantsappellants had refused to provide the electric connection inspite of repeated requests and since it was not possible to commence operations without an electricity connection as such the suit had been instituted.
Upon notice, defendant-appellant, U.H.B.V.N Ltd. filed a written statement taking a categoric plea that as per Nigam rules no connection can be issued to a defaulter in the same premises unless and until the payment due along with all charges is deposited. Defendant-Nigam denied that M/s Lord Plywood was a separate company and functioning from its separate premises.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
RSA No. 433 of 2012 (O&M) -3-
The Trial Court upon appreciation of evidence and having heard the submissions made by respective counsel decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-company and the defendant-Nigam was directed to provide the electric connection within a period of one month. The defendant-Nigam filed a civil appeal and vide impugned judgement dated 14.10.2011 passed by the District Judge, Rohtak the appeal has been dismissed. Accordingly, the defendant-Nigam is in second appeal before this Court.
I have heard Mr. K.S. Malik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant at length.
The sale circular Ex. D-2 is very clear and there is a specific stipulation contained therein that an electricity connection cannot be issued in favour of a defaulter pertaining to the same premises unless and until the outstanding dues are made good. The electricity connection was being denied to the plaintiff-respondent company solely on the basis of Ex.D-1 i.e. Memo No.2011 dated 12.7.2006, whereby the payment of Rs.2,24,342/- was due from M/s Lord Plywood as such the basic issue for determination before the courts below was as to whether M/s Lord Plywood was operating from the same premises as held by the plaintiff-respondent company and which in turn would make the respondent-plaintiff liable for the payment as raised vide Memo No.2011 dated 12.7.2006.
Both the courts below have returned concurrent findings to the effect that no evidence has been led by the defendant-appellant to establish that the premises from where M/s Lord Plywood had operated and the premises occupied by the plaintiff-respondent company for which the electricity connection had been applied for are the same. Ex. D-4 is the copy of sale deed through which the plaintiff-respondent had purchased the
RSA No. 433 of 2012 (O&M) -4-
property from M/s Rama Cardboard & Paper Mills. Ex. D-3 is the mutation thereof. The courts below have recorded that from such document no inference could be drawn that the plaintiff-respondent company as also M/s Lord Plywood were operating from the same premises. Even the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the defendants-appellants to the effect that M/s Lord Plywood had submitted documents Ex. D-3 & D-4 at the time of applying for the electric connection, was not supported by the evidence on record and the statement of Anil Kumar, S.D.O was also not to such effect. Reliance has been placed upon Ex. D-10 by the defendant-appellant which a copy of the plaint in Civil Suit No.202 of 2006 filed by M/s Lord Plywood Ltd. to assert that in para 3 of the plaint the same address had been mentioned as in para 3 of the instant suit. Even such assertion has been found to be factually incorrect and the first appellate court has categorically recorded that both the addresses are different. In a nutshell the courts below have concluded that the defendant-appellant Nigam has failed to prove that the plaintiff-respondent company as also M/s Lord Plywood Ltd. is one and the same and that both the companies were operating from the same premises. In such a situation the sale circular Ex. D-2 could not operate so as to deny to the plaintiff-respondent company electricity connection sought for. The liability of Rs.2,24,342/- allegedly due from M/s Lord Plywood Ltd. could not have been fastened on to the plaintiff-respondent company.
The concurrent findings of fact as recorded by the courts below are binding on the High Court. I do not find the same to be perverse. The present second appeal does not raise any question of law much less substantial question of law.
RSA No. 433 of 2012 (O&M)
-5-
The appeal is wholly without merit and is, accordingly,
dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE
27.1.2012. lucky
Whether to be reported? Yes.
U.H.B.V.N. Ltd.
Associated Petrochem Pvt. Ltd.
Associated Petrochem Pvt. Ltd.
Tejender Singh Dhindsa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
