Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5461 of 2005
PETITIONER:
M/s. Amit Products (India) Ltd.
RESPONDENT:
Chief Engineer (O & M) Circle & Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/09/2005
BENCH:
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN & B.P. SINGH
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 25222/2004)
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.
Leave granted.
Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned
Counsel for the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (in short
"MSEB"). By the impugned Judgment, the Writ Petition filed by the
appellant company was rejected by the High Court. The appellant
company, M/s. Amit Products (India) Ltd., is a company incorporated
in India and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act,
1956. The appellant company obtained Provisional Registration
Certificate as a small scale industry from the Director of Companies
of Government of Maharashtra. The Director of the Appellant
Company Shri Shridhar Natekar filed an application for getting
electricity connection. This was rejected by the respondent MSEB.
MSEB insisted on clearance of all arrears of electricity charges
payable by M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Limited which according
to the MSEB was the previous consumer. The appellant company
contended that they are not liable to pay the electricity charges
payable by M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and the appellant
company herein is a distinct and separate company which had
nothing to do with M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
It may be noted that previously appellant company filed a Writ
Petition namely, W.P. 2090/2002. In the Writ Petition, the appellant
company requested for power supply to its factory contending that it
is a separate company situated at a separate portion of the property
comprised in the same Survey No. and the insistence of the MSEB to
pay the arrears of electricity charges to be payable by M/s. Amar Amit
Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and the refusal to give supply was arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The matter
was elaborately considered by the High Court of Bombay and by
judgment dated 18.12.21003, it was held that the appellant company
was seeking connection in respect of the same premises, by the
same consumer, under the guise of separate corporate body and it
was found that the appellant company was the very same corporate
entity which committed default in paying the electricity charges. It
was held that the appellant company was not an independent entity
having no concern with the previous defaulter.
The present appellant company now contends that the previous
judgment was passed at a time when the Directors of the appellant
Company were Amit Dembada, Anita Dembada and Thakur Das
Tejnani and it is now pointed out that the present Directors are Abhay
Abad, Sridhar Natekar and Thakurdas Tejnani and the learned
counsel for the appellant company further contended that the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
shareholders of the appellant company have also been changed and
the details of the present shareholders are mentioned to be seven in
number and they are not belonging to the family to Dembada. It is
submitted that the previous defaulter M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys
Pvt. Ltd. was a family concern of Dembada and they have nothing to
do with the present appellant company and the whole corporate entity
has changed and the respondent MSEB is bound to give connection
without insisting for the payment of electricity charges to be payable
by M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
The appellant company also contended that it is in possession
of only 40 Ares of land out of the total property comprising Gut No.
953; Its total area bearing 2 hectares 82 Ares. The appellant
company has also pointed out that M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt.
Ltd. was having factory on the north-eastern corner of the property
whereas the appellant company is on the north-western corner side
of the property.
The learned Counsel for the first respondent contended that the
very same company had applied for connection and the Writ Petition
filed by the appellant company previously was dismissed and the
same was challenged before this Court and this Court dismissed SLP
and there was further Review and Curative Petition and all of them
were dismissed by this Court, and therefore, the appellant company
was not justified in filing a fresh appeal.
We have carefully considered the rival contentions of both the
parties. We are unable to accept the contention of the appellant
company that by changing the members of the Board of Directors of
the Company or by changing the shareholding pattern, the appellant
Company had undergone any change. The very same company
wanted the electricity connection without making any payment
towards the electricity charges payable by the previous consumer
and the matter was dealt with in detail by the High Court and it was
held that the appellant company is none other than the sister concern
of M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and was representing the
same consumer who had committed the default and it was held that
Condition 23(b) of the Conditions of Miscellaneous Charges for
supply of electricity energy would apply to the appellant Company.
We do not think that by change of Directors or by change of pattern of
the shareholding, the appellant company is really a different entity
than M/s. Amit Products (India) Ltd. who filed the previous Writ
Petition No. 2090/2002. The reasons given in the previous Judgment
which were confirmed by this Court would apply with all force against
the present appellant company and the High Court has rightly
dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant Company.
We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and
the appeal is dismissed.