- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 27 February 1996
- Bench
- K. Ramaswamy, S. Saghir Ahmad, G. B. Pattanaik
- Result
- Appeal disposed of.
Headnote
Electlicity-<;onsume1~Pilferage-Demand of Rs. 28, 68, 264.06 from consume1~Suit by consumer for supply of elect1icity-Direction by t1ial to consumer to deposit Rs. 2,60,000-High Cowt-Modification of order and direction to deposit Rs. 5,60,000-Validity of direction by High Cowt-Held nonnally in matters of money claim at least half of amount would be directed to be deposited-In this case Board is obligated to supply electlical ener-gy-Consumer is also under obligation to pay amount subject to detennination of controversy in suit-Conswner directed to deposit Rs. 12 lakhs.
Cowt-Power to pass discretionary orde1~S1tould be exercised proper-ly.
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
Mr. A.D. Sikri, Learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of .the respondents. We have heard the counsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the respondents, it is a discretionary order. The discretion would also be properly exercised by the courts below when dealing with the points in controversy. A demand of Rs. 28, 68, 264.06 was made on the allegation that there were pilferages in the meter reading of the electrical energy supplied to the respondents. In a suit by the respondents for supply of energy to the respondents, the trial Court directed payment of Rs. 2,60,000 and odd. On appeal, it was confirmed. When it was carried in revision, the High Court in C.O. No 2714 1995 ...- modified the order and directed the respondents to deposit a sum of Rs.
5,60,000. Thus this appeal by special leave.
A demand notice for Rs. 28 lakhs and odd having been issued, the question is : whether the Court was right in directing ultimately payment of Rs. 5,60,000 ? The High Court does not appear to have addressed itself to the questions. It simply repeated that it was a discretionary order passed by the courts below directing payment of Rs. 2.60 lakhs and at the same time directed the respondents to deposit Rs. 5,60,000 without adjudicating the matter. Normally, in matters of money claim, at least half of the amount would be directed to be deposited. In the situation obtaining in this case, when the appellant is obligated to supply electrical energy to the respon-dents an equal obligation has to be cast on the respondents to pay the amount subject to determination of controversy in the suit. Under these circumstances, the respondents are directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs within a period of two months from today. If the amount of Rs. 5,60,000 has already been deposited, the same may be given credit for the payment and the balance be paid within the aforesaid period.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Case details
Arising from
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4720 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.95 of the Calcutta High Court in C.O. No. 2714 of 1995.
Appearances
V.B. Reddy Additional Solicitor General, H.K. Pµri, Rajesh Srivas-tava and S.P. Lenka, for the Appellant.
Sivaji Sen, Bar-at-Law, S.C. Ghosh and A.D. Sikri for the Respon-dents.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.