This court dismissed a regular second appeal challenging an electricity bill. It held that mere non-examination of the bill preparer does not warrant an adverse inference when sufficient evidence proves the bill's accuracy, upholding the lower courts' findings.
Second appeal dismissed with no costs.
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.
126
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Regular Second Appeal No. 196 of 2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 10.09.2021
Om Parkash and Another
... Appellant(s)
Versus
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Faridabad
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.
Present: Mr. Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate for the appellant(s).
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
The learned counsel representing the appellants contends that
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ3. 2021.09.14 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Regular Second Appeal No. 196 of 2021 (O&M) 2
the respondent-Nigam did not examine the official who had prepared the bill.
(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge
September 10, 2021 “DK” Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2021.09.14 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the electricity bill issued for unpaid consumption was correct and legally enforceable.
Whether the non-examination of the official who prepared the bill justifies drawing an adverse inference against the respondent.
Whether the impugned concurrent findings of fact warrant interference in the appeal.
Om Parkash and Another
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Faridabad
Anil Kshetarpal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
