CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1691 of 1999 PETITIONER: AHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY CO. LTD. RESPONDENT: GUJARAT INNS. PVT. LTD. AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/03/2004 BENCH: R.C. LAHOTI & BRIJESH KUMAR & ARUN KUMAR JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2004(3) SCR 23
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The respondents in the two appeals before us are auction purchasers of
urban properties in the sales held in one case under Section 29 of the
State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 and in the other case by the Official
Liquidator in winding up proceedings under the Indian Companies Act, 1956.
The previous owners of the properties in both the cases had run into some
arrears qua the appellant in respect of power supply made to the premises
which have been the subject matter of sales. It appears that the
respondents sought for a fresh connections for supply of power to the
respective premises. The appellant insisted on the previous arrears being
cleared, It also appears that some arrears were paid by the respondents
Nos. 1 and 2 in Civil Appeal No. 1691 of 1999. However, the supply of
electricity has been resumed. The dispute is whether the respondents should
be held liable to pay the arrears which were outstanding against the
previous owners.
A three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Isha Marbles v. Bihar State
Electricity Board and Anr., [1995] 2 SCC 648 supports the respondents and
has been followed by the High Court. Mr. Harish N. Salve, the learned
senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the decision in Isha
Marbles’ case (supra) does not lay down the correct law and needs
reconsideration. In particular, the learned senior counsel for the
appellant has invited our attention to paragraphs 49 and 57 of the decision
wherein this Court has held that not only in the case of fresh connection
but even if it is a case of reconnection the buyer of the property is under
no obligation to pay the arrears incurred by the previous owners. The
learned counsel submitted that at least a distinction should be drawn,
between the case of reconnection and the case the former case even the
buyer would not be the arrears were cleared. Two cases are the cases of
fresh respondents (auction purchasers) connections and they have no
objection in as fresh connections given on the dates on which the supply of
electricity was restored to the premises. We are clearly of the opinion
that in case of a fresh connection though the premises are the same, the
auction purchasers cannot be held liable to clear the arrears incurred by
the previous owners in respect of power supply to the premises in the
absence of there being a specific statutory provision in that regard.
Though we find some merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant calling for reconsideration of the wide propositions of law laid
down in Isha Marbles’ case (supra), we think the present one is not a case
for such exercise. We leave the plea open for consideration in an
appropriate case.
The appeals are dismissed.