First Appeal No. 243 of 2008. Case: Prateek Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Chief Electrical Engineer. Bombay High Court

Case Number:First Appeal No. 243 of 2008
Party Name:Prateek Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Chief Electrical Engineer
Counsel:For Appellant: D. Pangam, Advocate and For Respondents: E. Afonso, Government Advocate
Judges:U. V. Bakre, J.
Issue:Civil Procedure Code
Judgement Date:September 18, 2014
Court:Bombay High Court


U. V. Bakre, J.

  1. Heard Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Afonso, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.

  2. This First Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 30/04/2008 passed by the learned Ad hoc District Judge- I FTC Panaji (trial Court, for short) in Civil Suit No. 45/2007. The appellants were the plaintiffs and the respondents were the defendants. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. Parties shall herein after be referred to as per their status in the said suit.

  3. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for recovery, from the defendants, of an amount of ` 4,50,000/- along with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from 20.12.2005 till the date of actual payment. The defendants, by communication dated 31.05.2002, had demanded from the plaintiffs the electrical consumption charges for the period 25.03.2002 to 01.04.2002, amounting to ` 3,95,161/-, during which period, according to the plaintiffs, they had kept their industrial plant continuously closed with the departmental incoming Gang Operated 3 Air Break switch of installation, open. The plaintiffs had received the bill for the electrical consumption for the following months and said bills were duly paid. Subsequently, it was found out by the defendants that more rebate was erroneously given for the period from 25.03.2002 to 01/04/2002 during which according to the plaintiffs, their industrial plant was continuously closed. As such, the revised bill was sent to the plaintiffs for a sum of ` 3,95,161/-, which was sent on or about 21.05.2002. This additional demand for the period of 7 days during the alleged closure of the industrial plant was disputed and as such representations were made to the State Government and matter was taken at ministerial level. Various such representations were also made by other industrialists, who were also served with similar revised bills. The representations were pending till the year 2007 and ultimately the plaintiffs did not succeed in the representation and, as such, the amount of revised bill was demanded from the plaintiffs. This happened sometime in October, November, 2005. Demand was made from the plaintiffs and under protest, the amount of ` 4,50,000/- was deposited with the defendants on 20.12.2005, which included the principal amount of ` 3,95,161/-. Thereafter, sometimes in the year 2007, Writ Petition No.287/2007 was...

To continue reading