GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD vs MAHENDRA SUTING LTD
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/1193/2009 (GJHC240393882009) JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1193 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD
Versus
MAHENDRA SUTING LTD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BHOOMI M THAKORE(6237) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 11/09/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)
1. By way of this First Appeal, the appellant – original plaintiff
challenges the judgment and decree dated 01/07/2004 passed in Special
Civil Suit No.373 of 2002 by the learned Civil Judge, (SD), Ahmedabad
Rural whereby the suit preferred by the appellant – plaintiff came to be
dismissed seeking recovery of the amount of Rs.41,82,789.79 Paise.
Page 1 of 19
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Sep 11 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 11 16:49:26 IST 2026
C/FA/1193/2009 (GJHC240393882009) JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2026
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein are
referred to as per their original status before the learned Trial Court.
3. At the outset, it deserves to be noted that the respondent No.1 –
company has gone into the liquidation vide order dated 09/07/2025,
following which the Official Liquidator is appointed and impleaded as
party necessary. Now, the fact which records to the effect of liquidation
pending the proceedings is concerned, it is oblivious that the respondent –
company has gone into the liquidation and therefore, the OL – respondent
No.3 who acts on behalf of the company to manage and dispose of its
assets. Consequently, the OL entered into the shoes of the company
considering the matter relating to the companies.
4. Now, so far as the case on hand is concerned, during the pendency
of the appeal, the liquidator has been impleaded as party respondent No.3
and therefore, the effect thereof would concern to the right or the claims
of the companies which is to be presented through the liquidator and thus
the liquidator who is being represented fairly conceded that even if the
appeal succeeds then he is to lodge the claim and is to stand in queue for
recovery of the same. Thus, the same rests on the outcome of the appeal
which has been fairly conceded.
5. The brief facts of the case as emerging from the pleadings of the
learned Advocate for the appellant are as under:
5.1 The defendant – company applied for 2000 KVA power from the
plaintiff –Board and in response thereto the estimate of Rs.4,08,320/- was
Page 2 of 19
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Sep 11 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 11 16:49:26 IST 2026
C/FA/1193/2009 (GJHC240393882009) JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2026
issued. The defendant – company paid the estimate amount and thereafter
an agreement was executed with the plaintiff for 2000 KVA. The
defendant was permitted to use diesel generating set.
5.2 It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant applied for 1000
KVA as stopgap arrangement since the technical feasibility was not made
and the appellant was not ready to supply 2000 KVA and it was possible
to supply only 500 KVA not as a part of the agreement; but as a stopgap
arrangement since 2000 KVA was to supply from another feeder but till
that special arrangement was to be made and the defendant can be given
power supply at night hours for which defendant asked for 1000 KVA.
However, considering the technical feasibility, the Board sanctioned 500
KVA for which the defendant installed night hour meter and CTPT and
paid security deposit of Rs.5,62,000/-.
5.3 It is further case of the plaintiff that as a stopgap arrangement
connection for 500 KVA was released for supplying power at night hours.
The defendant was supplied 500 KVA power for 24 hours. Again, the
defendant asked for extension of load from 500 to 800 KVA; however
since the Board was not in a position to give more power than 500 KVA,
the said application was not sanctioned.
5.4 It is further the case of the plaintiff that the Board was ready to
release power of 2000 KVA as per the demand of the defendant and as
power of 500 KVA was already released for the remaining 1500 KVA
Board completed the procedure and informed the defendant No.1 that the
Board is ready to release the remaining 1500 KVA subject to the
Page 3 of 19
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Sep 11 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 11 16:49:26 IST 2026
C/FA/1193/2009 (GJHC240393882009) JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2026
respondent making payment of Rs.34,41,951.00 as security deposit within
one month thereof. In that letter, there was a clause that if the respondent
fails to take power supply within four months, the Board will be entitled
to charge the respondent for the minimum charges for 2000 KVA. There
is another clause in the said letter/release order that as per the estimate,
the Board will initially supply power only at night hours on the payment
of security deposit, as also in the said letter there is a clause that if after
the deposit, the respondent applies for power for 24 hours, it will be
considered. However the respondent did not pay the amount of the
security deposit as required.
5.5 It is further the case of the plaintiff that though under the said
agreement, it is not permissible to reduce the load, but since the power
supply taken by the respondent which was released by the Board, the said
request was considered by Board and the defendant was asked to pay
additional 20% of the estimate charges. However, the defendant did not
pay the said requisite amount of 20% as asked by the Board for reduction
of the load. The defendant neither paid the amount of security deposit nor
paid the amount of 20% of estimate charges for getting reduction of the
load as per the agreement and as per the conditions and Miscellaneous
Charges for Supply of Electrical Energy, the Board started charging
minimum charges from the defendant for 2000 KVA after expiry of 4
months from the date of release order dated 23.1.1998. However, the
defendant again asked for reduction of load.
5.6 It is also the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff replied to the
respondent and stated that the Board is ready to supply the full quantum
Page 4 of 19
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Sep 11 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 11 16:49:26 IST 2026
C/FA/1193/2009 (GJHC240393882009) JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2026
of load round the clock on making security deposit and again informed
about payment of respondent that the reduction of load can be considered
if the defendant pays 20% of the estimate charges. However, the
defendant did not pay the amount of security deposit for release of the
power supply of 2000 KVA nor the amount of 20% of the estimate for
reduction of load.
5.7 It is further the case of the plaintiff that since the plaintiff started
charging minimum charges from the defendant on expiry of four months
as per the terms of the agreement and conditions of supply and the
defendant did not pay the amount of security deposit nor it paid amount
of charges for reduction of load. Thereafter, the defendant agreed to pay
20% of the estimate charges and requested not to charge minimum
charges for additional 1500 KVA. The defendant wrote a letter that now
it does not want reduction of load and wants power for 2000 KVA and
also requested to grant installment for making payment of security
deposit of Rs.34,41,951.00. The said installment was granted by the
plaintiff for payment of security deposit. However, the respondent did not
pay the amount of security deposit despite grant of installment.
5.8 It is further the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff issued notices
for termination of contract and therefore, the respondent filed Special
Civil Application No.744 of 1999 before this Court against such
termination of contract and in the said petition, the petitioner was granted
installment by this Court for paying of energy consumption charges to the
tune of Rs.37,74,178.76ps. Thereupon, the notice of termination of
contract was cancelled and the connection was reconnected. The
Page 5 of 19
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Sep 11 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 11 16:49:26 IST 2026
C/FA/1193/2009 (GJHC240393882009) JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2026
defendant paid amount towards arrears of energy consumption charges
and not towards security deposit and therefore, the connection for 500
KVA was released and not for 2000 KVA.
5.9 It is further the case of the plaintiff that defendant ultimately paid
20% of the estimate charges; however since the defendant had not paid
the security deposit and the notice for termination of contract was issued
and therefore, the amount of Rs.81,664/- which was paid towards
additional amount of estimate charges was adjusted towards arrears of
energy bills. The defendant did not pay the energy charges, notice for
termination was issued for termination of contract for supply of 2000
KVA. However, the defendant did not pay the arrears of energy charges,
the connection was permanently disconnected.
5.10 As a result, the appellant – plaintiff filed a Special Civil Suit
No.373 of 2002 before the learned Civil Court. Upon filing of the suit, the
reply / written statement was filed by the respondent – defendant denying
the claim made by the appellant – defendant. The learned Judge of the
Civil Court has framed mainly five issues and evidence was led by the
parties in oral as well as documentary nature and after considering the
arguments made before the learned Civil Court, the learned Judge of the
Civil Court has dismissed the suit by the impugned order which has been
carried before this Court by way of present appeal.
6. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant – plaintiff would
assail the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of
the Trial Court by submitting that the learned Trial Court has failed to
Page 6 of 19
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Sep 11 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 11 16:49:26 IST 2026
C/FA/1193/2009 (GJHC240393882009) JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2026
appreciate the fact that the defendant has failed to act as per the terms and
conditions of the contract. It is submitted that 500 KVA power supply
which was given to the defendant was not towards its application for
2000 KVA; but it was a special arrangement till the Board is ready to
supply 2000 KVA. It is submitted that it was a stopgap arrangement
which is not the part of the agreement; however with a view to see that
till the Board prepares the lines the defendant consumer can get power
supply immediately and therefore the aforesaid supply of 500 KVA was
released.
6.1 It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to
appreciate the fact that as per the agreement which is executed between
the defendant and appellant, once the agreement is executed, the
defendant is bound by the said agreement and as per the terms of the
agreement, the defendant cannot reduce the contracted load within two
years from the date of execution of the agreement since the Board is
incurring heavy expenditure on laying of lines, erection of transformer
etc.
6.2 It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to
appreciate the fact that the application of the defendant for extension of
load from 500 to 800 KVA made on 25.10.1997 which was not accepted
since original application was for 2000 KVA and the 500 supply was
released as a stopgap arrangement which cannot be increased to 800
KVA. However, thereafter since all the infrastructure was ready, the
Board had issued letter/release order stating that the Board is ready to
supply power of 2000 KVA to the defendant as per the estimate initially
Page 7 of 19
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Sep 11 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 11 16:49:26 IST 2026
C/FA/1193/2009 (GJHC240393882009) JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2026
the power was to be given only during night hours and thereafter at the
request of the defendant, it can be given for 24 hours. Thus, the learned
Judge of the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that initially
power supply was released for 500 KVA during night hours and the
defendant was using D.G.Set which was running its unit continuously and
therefore the submission of the defendant that it cannot run its factory for
24 hours without 2000 KVA is not correct.
6.3 It is further submitted by learned Advocate for the plaintiff that the
learned Judge of the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that
again the respondent applied and made a request that it does not want
2000 KVA power supply on 15.2.1998 and wanted to reduce the power
from 2000 KVA to 500; however as per the special resolution passed by
the appellant - Board to see that the industry can run, it decided to inform
the defendant that if it pays 20% more amount of the estimate charges of
Rs.4,08,320/- which is however paid by it Rs.81,664/-, the appellant
would reduce the load; but again the defendant did not pay the said
amount.
6.4 It is further submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant
that the learned Judge of the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact
that the termination notice was issued since the respondent had not paid
the energy charges and minimum charges for 2000KVA and due to non-
payment of energy charges, the connection of the defendant w.e.f.
1.6.2000 was permanently disconnected. It is submitted that the finding
arrived at by the learned Trial Court is erroneous that since the appellant
has not supplied the power for 2000 KVA and therefore the Board is not
Page 8 of 19
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Sep 11 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 11 16:49:26 IST 2026
C/FA/1193/2009 (GJHC240393882009) JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2026
entitled to charge minimum charges from the respondent.
6.5 While taking this Court through the impugned judgment and
decree, it is submitted that there is no proof or evidence produced by the
defendant in support of the case and the learned Judge of the Trial Court
has without there being any evidence has passed the judgment and decree
which is contrary to the law and evidence.
6.6 In support of the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate
for the appellant, reliance is placed upon the following decisions.
1. Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna vs. Green Rubber Industries
[1990 (1) SCC 731].
2. Hyderababd Vanaspathi Ltd. vs. A.P. State Electricity Board &
Others [(1998) 4 SCC 470].
3. A decision of this Hon’ble Court rendered in the case of Prakash
Industries vs. Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited (DGVCL) &
Ors., in First Appeal No.2182 of 2019 dated 08/06/2026.
6.7 By making the above submissions, learned Advocate for the
appellant would submit to allow the present appeal and to quash and set
aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge of the Trial
Court.
7. Learned Advocate for the respondent – defendant – company
though has been served has chosen not to contest the appeal.
8. As noted herein above, the respondent – company went under the
Page 9 of 19
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Sep 11 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 11 16:49:26 IST 2026
C/FA/1193/2009 (GJHC240393882009) JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2026
liquidation and the liquidator has been appointed who has fairly conceded
that if the appeal succeeds then he is to lodge the claim and is to stand in
queue for recovery of the same. Thus, the same rests on the outcome of
the appeal.
9. Having heard the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and
examining the impugned judgment and order, it transpires there-from that
the defendant had admittedly applied for 2000 KVA powers from the
plaintiff – Board following which the plaintiff issued the estimate for
Rs.4,08,320/- on 15/07/1994 and as per the clause of the said estimate,
that the supply is to be initially given during the night hours, only in case
if the requirement is more than 500 KVA which would be subject to the
scrutiny by the committee.
9.1 It also transpires that the agreement seems to have been executed
between the parties for 2000 KVA and initially the defendant was
supplied with the powers to the extent of 500 KVA during the night
hours. However, subsequent thereto the defendant has sought the addition
of 1500 KVA from the contract demand of 500 KVA which comes to
2000 KVA. However, as per the correspondence made between the
parties, it appears that in lieu of the aforesaid, that out of the total contract
demand of 2000 KVA, the defendant was permitted to utilize 500 KVA
only during day and night hours and respondent was directed to pay the
fixed service connection charges + other ancillary charges as per the
conditions for supply of release of additional load and consequently the
security in question has been deposited as called for from the appellant.
However, thereafter, the respondent-defendant addressed a letter to the
Page 10 of 19
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Sep 11 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 11 16:49:26 IST 2026
C/FA/1193/2009 (GJHC240393882009) JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2026
appellant that they do not want to continue with the requirement of
additional 1500 KVA as was sanctioned to them for the night hours since
their requirement was sufficient to fulfill the demand through 500 KVA.
While stating that the defendant requires no break power round the clock
and therefore they cannot utilize the sanctioned load for the night hours
only and while addressing the aforesaid letter has requested that they
would apply for the additional load in future for the extension of their
establishment if so required. Thus, in nutshell, the defendant sought
rejection of the load from 1500-2000 KVA to 500 KVA.
10. The submission made by the learned Advocate for the appellant is
that under the said agreement, the same is not permissible however, the
said request considering the fact of supply of 500 KVA is allowed and
subsequent thereto request for additional 1500 KVA is allowed subject to
payment of additional charges to the extent of 20% estimate charges. In
this regard, it would be apt to note that though it is submitted that since
the respondent had not paid the said requisite amount of 20% of the
estimate charges nor the amount towards the security deposit and
therefore, the same has violated the terms and conditions of the
agreement and hence miscellaneous charges for supply of electrical
energy, the appellant-Board was constrained to initiate charging
minimum charges from the respondent for 2000 KVA.
11. Though efforts have been made by the learned Advocate for the
appellant that even the appellant-Board has called upon the respondent
while expressing the readiness and willingness to supply full quantum of
load round the clock on making payment of deposit and requested the
Page 11 of 19
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Sep 11 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 11 16:49:26 IST 2026
C/FA/1193/2009 (GJHC240393882009) JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2026
company to consider the reduction of load if it pays 20% of the estimate
charges. Thus, it is submitted that since the defendant has failed to act as
called upon by the appellant, the appellant was constrained to issue a
letter dated 25/05/1998 following which as submitted by the learned
advocate for the appellant, the respondent had agreed to pay 20% of the
estimate charges and requested not to charge minimum charges for
additional 1500 KVA. However, the same could not have been equated
and therefore the respondent is alleged to have called upon the appellant
seeking to supply of power for 2000 KVA subject to the grant of
installment for making the payment towards the security deposit. Thus,
the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant that despite the
aforesaid, the respondent – company failed not only to act upon as called
upon by the appellant but flagrantly neglected to pay 20% amount
towards the minimum estimate charges and also committed default in
paying the installment and therefore, the notice of termination came to be
issued by the appellant though the said termination appears to have been
challenged by the respondent by filing SCA No.744 of 1999 wherein the
request for granting installment came to be considered by this Hon’ble
Court and consequently the notice of termination came to be cancelled
and connection was reconnected.
12. It further transpires as claimed by the appellant that due to the
default on the part of the respondent to pay the arrears of energy
consumption charges, connection of 500 KVA was released instead of
2000 KVA. It further transpires from the material placed for
consideration that due to the alleged default on the part of the respondent
– company against the paying 20% of the estimate charges, again the
Page 12 of 19
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Sep 11 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 11 16:49:26 IST 2026
C/FA/1193/2009 (GJHC240393882009) JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2026
notice for termination of the contract came to be issued and therefore, the
amount of Rs.81,664/- have been paid. However, the appellant – Board
claimed to have adjusted the same towards the arrears of energy bill as
the defendant has failed to pay energy charges which culminated in
permanent disconnection of the electricity supply of the respondent –
company.
13. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, it transpires from inception that the
demand for supply of the electricity by the appellant was to the extent of
2000 KVA round the clock so that they can utilize the sanctioned load for
the purpose they have sought for. However, the appellant could not have
supplied the same due to technical defects with the rider that at initial
stage, the respondent was provided with 500 KVA and thereafter due to
demand and request tendered by the respondent – company sought the
addition of 1500 KVA. However, there appears several correspondence
and communications entered into between the parties with regard to the
reductions and additions of the supply which has apparently revealed that
the same could not have reached upto 2000 KVA. It is only after the
letter being addressed by the respondent – company to the appellant that
since they do not want 1500 KVA supply and only thereafter sought
reduction to 500 KVA. However, the said request was considered subject
to payment of minimum charges of 20% estimate charges and the same
was not agreed upon as claimed by the appellant since the respondent
seems to have paid the charges of the electricity supply. Not only that, it
appears that the respondent seems to have paid the charges in excess to
the amount towards the electricity supply.
Page 13 of 19
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Sep 11 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 11 16:49:26 IST 2026
C/FA/1193/2009 (GJHC240393882009) JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2026
14. The issue which now remains to be confined is as to whether at any
point of time, the appellant has provided rather supplied 2000 KVA or
not to the respondent as per the terms and conditions followed by the
execution of the agreement. The answer would be in negative as at no
point of time the respondent – company has ever been supplied with 2000
KVA or energy and therefore, that hampered upon the very establishment
of the respondent – company which in turn has been constrained to get
the reduction only for particular hours. Thus, in nutshell since the
appellant – company could not have provided 2000 KVA supply, the
minimum charges as sought to be imposed and saddled by the appellant –
company and the claim thereof could not have been sustained.
15. Though much has been emphasized by the learned Advocate for
the appellant that since the agreement for supply of the electricity has
been executed between the parties which stipulating to pay the minimum
guaranteed charges irrespective of whether the defendant consumed or
not and therefore even in case that the supply line was disconnected then
also the respondent – firm is liable to pay the minimum guaranteed
charges as per the agreement and to substantiate the same, learned
advocate for the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision in case of
Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna (supra) which pertains to the case
where the agreement for supply of electricity was executed with a
stipulation to pay minimum guaranteed charges irrespective of whether
energy was consumed or not and therefore whether despite the fact that
supply line was connected and therefore firm was liable to pay minimum
guaranteed charges as per agreement or not. However, equating the same
with the facts of the case, here is not the case of disconnection of supply
Page 14 of 19
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Sep 11 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 11 16:49:26 IST 2026
C/FA/1193/2009 (GJHC240393882009) JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2026
line. In the facts of the case on hand, the appellant – Board agreed to
supply 2000 KVA and thereafter failed to supply the same round the
clock.
16. Further, it is required to be noted that there is no dispute with
regard to the parties having entered into the contract and as per the said
contract, the appellant was required to supply 2000 KVA however instead
thereof, at different time slot, the appellant appears to have provided 500
KVA and the request of the respondent has been extended for addition of
1500 KVA and that there was an admission on the part of the respondent
for the supply of 2000 KVA which could not have been supplied which
ultimately compelled the respondent – company to seek the reduction
upto 500 KVA as non-supply of the required demand round the clock
would not serve the purpose of the respondent – company which
otherwise hampered the activities of the respondent – company.
17. On the same line and scenario, learned Advocate for the appellant
has placed reliance on the decision in case of Hyderababd Vanaspathi
Ltd (supra) . We have gone through the said decision which pertains to
the terms and conditions of the supply of the electricity to the consumer
by the appellant and which are considered to be of statutory in character.
However, merely entering into any written agreement between the Board
and consumer would not make the terms and conditions of the purely
contractual nature as held therein and equating the same with the facts of
the case on hand, there is no dispute that the parties have entered into the
agreement; but the issue remains to be determined is with regard to the
fulfillment of the terms and conditions and the parties either appears to
Page 15 of 19
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Sep 11 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 11 16:49:26 IST 2026
C/FA/1193/2009 (GJHC240393882009) JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2026
have been litigating on the aforesaid issue and there also appears to be a
conflict in regard to the execution of the agreement between the parties;
but with regard to the supply of the electricity as demanded by the
respondent – company which could not have been provided by the
appellant – Board round the clock and instead thereof during the night
hours only and therefore on different occasions the respondent – company
was constrained to address a letter for addition of 1500 MVA. However,
since it was also provided during the night hours and therefore the
respondent–company have sought to reduce the same to the extent of 500
KVA. Thus, in nutshell the agreement executed between the parties was
to the extent whereby the appellant was supposed to supply 2000 KVA
instead thereof, the appellant appears to have supplied 500 KVA and the
same was extended at the request of the respondent upto 1500 KVA that
too with the rider only during the night hours.
18. Now, insofar as, the finding of the learned Judge of the Trial Court
is concerned, it appears from the record that though the number of
documentary and oral evidence was produced before the Court; however
the same does not support the claim of the appellant-plaintiff. It
transpires that by letter dated 04.06.1997 at Exh.27, the Additional Chief
Engineer recognized the defendant's unit as a Continuous Processing
Industry and directed the Executive Engineer, Bavla, to extend the benefit
applicable to such industry, which necessarily contemplated uninterrupted
electricity supply for 24 hours. The plaintiff has also examined the
Executive Engineer, Shri Malibhai G. Patel, at Exh.19 and in cross-
examination, the said witness appears to have admitted that the plaintiff
was not in a position to supply 2000 KVA and the necessary line for
Page 16 of 19
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Sep 11 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 11 16:49:26 IST 2026
C/FA/1193/2009 (GJHC240393882009) JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2026
supplying 2000 KVA had to be completed by the plaintiff itself. The said
witness has further admitted that the defendants had already paid the
estimated charges for the 2000 KVA line, but that the line could be
completed only on 23.01.1998 and that supply of 2000 KVA was not
possible prior thereto. It was also admitted that, initially, permission was
granted for only 500 KVA on a round-the-clock basis with effect from
19.03.1998, and that even 800 KVA could not be supplied before
23.01.1998. Thus, the evidence produced at Exhs.26, 28, 29 and 30
corroborates the aforesaid version as is come out from the evidence of the
plaintiff.
19. It would also appear from the record that evidence produced at
Exh.30 indicates that the plaintiff-Board could have made an offer for the
additional supply of 1500 KVA only during night hours and the witness
examined on behalf of the plaintiff as aforesaid has admitted that supply
of electricity only during night hours would interrupt the manufacturing
process of the defendant's Continuous Processing Industry and would,
therefore, be of no practical utility. It thus proved that the plaintiff was
not in a position to provide the contracted 2000 KVA continuously and
round the clock during the material period. The subsequent conduct also
act against the plaintiff's claim for minimum demand charges on the basis
of 2000 KVA which would be appearing from the document produced at
Exh.31 that the defendant's request for reduction of the additional 1500
KVA in view of the plaintiff's inability to provide the contracted load
continuously. The evidence produced at Exh.32 also indicates that the
plaintiff had agreed for cancellation/reduction of the additional load
subject to payment of Rs.81,664/-. More so, the Executive Engineer
Page 17 of 19
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Sep 11 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 11 16:49:26 IST 2026
C/FA/1193/2009 (GJHC240393882009) JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2026
examined on behalf of the plaintiff has admitted that he could not identify
any contractual provision authorising the demand of Rs.81,664/- for
cancellation of the additional 1500 KVA and that no bill for the said
amount had been issued.
20. Thus, in light of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the defendant
requested for reduction of the load as per Exh.33 as the defendants were
not interested in retaining the additional 1500 KVA and at the same time
the acceptance of Rs.81,664/- made on behalf of the plaintiff as it evident
from Exh.39, as also admitted by witness in cross-examination examined
on behalf of the plaintiff further dis-entitle the claim made on behalf of
the plaintiff as once the plaintiff accepted the said amount, it cannot
subsequently assert a continuing entitlement to levy minimum demand
charges on the basis of the original 2000 KVA load, particularly when
there is no satisfactory evidence of any subsequent decision of the
competent authority restoring the 2000 KVA load.
21. The appellant - plaintiff has relied upon Exhs.59 and 60 to contend
that the defendant subsequently expressed its desire to continue with the
2000 KVA load. However, a conjoint reading of these documents does
not establish the restoration of the additional 1500 KVA. The said
documents is indicative of the fact that payment of Rs.11,47,000/- in
installments, with the subsequent installment being payable after
restoration of the 1500 KVA connection which establishes the fact that
the additional 1500 KVA was never restored and the original decision
reducing the load, continued to operate. Furthermore, the plaintiff has
Page 18 of 19
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Sep 11 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 11 16:49:26 IST 2026
C/FA/1193/2009 (GJHC240393882009) JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2026
also not produced any decision of its competent authority restoring the
2000 KVA load; nor has produced any satisfactory evidence establishing
that it was, in fact, capable of supplying 2000 KVA continuously and
round the clock during the relevant period. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to
prove that it was entitled to levy minimum demand charges on the basis
of 2000 KVA since the plaintiff's own witness has admitted the plaintiff's
inability to supply the contracted 2000 KVA continuously and the
subsequent correspondence, reduction of load, acceptance and forfeiture
of amounts, and absence of any competent decision restoring the 2000
KVA load corroborate the stand taken by the defendant.
22. It would be apt to note that the learned Judge of the Trial Court
after considering the evidence adduced before it and after having
threadbare examination of the witnesses examined before the Court at
length has come to the conclusion as observed herein above with which
this Court is in complete agreement and therefore, the same does not
warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.
23. In the result, the present appeal is devoid of merits and it is
accordingly dismissed. Interim-relief, if any, shall stand dismissed. The
connected application also stands disposed of. Records and Proceedings
be sent back.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
sompura
Page 19 of 19
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Sep 11 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 11 16:49:26 IST 2026