Gujarat High Court High Court

Lakhani vs Daxin on 28 January, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Lakhani vs Daxin on 28 January, 2011
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/15903/2010	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15903 of 2010
 

 
=====================================
 

LAKHANI
FILAMENTS PVT LTD - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

DAXIN
GUJARAT VIJ CO LTD - THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER - Respondent(s)
 

===================================== 
Appearance
: 
MS SONAL D VYAS for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MS
LILU K BHAYA for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=====================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
		
	

 

Date
: 28/01/2011 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

1.0 It
is really painful that on every step, the Court comes across the
fraud committed by the people for achieving paltry
monetary gains. This is one such case. The petitioner
obtained three different electricity connections in the same premises
and when he is issued Notice, the case of the petitioner is that, ‘it
was on separate applications and on furnishing separate assessment by
the electricity company that these connections are obtained’. He
is very blunt in replying to the Notice that ‘he does not propose
to change his electricity connections and therefore, his connections
be not clubbed together’.

2.0 The
petitioner seems to be under an impression that he is obliging the
electricity company by taking electricity supply from the company and
as if, it is beneficial for the electricity company to continue these
three different connections, he can exercise this option of allowing
the electricity company to club this connections or not.

3.0 The
matter is having a serious facets, warranting an order of criminal
prosecution, not only against the petitioner, but also against the
employees of the electricity company, who must have obliged the
petitioner by giving these three different connections. The
petitioner is given a bill of Rs.1,29,34,815/ on 9th
November 2010. The matter requires ‘immediate disconnection of the
power supply’ but to see that the petitioner is given an opportunity
to pay this amount, without prejudice to his rights and contentions,
it is deemed fit that on petitioner’s depositing an amount of Rs.5
lakh tomorrow i.e. 29th January 2011 by 12:30 p.m., the
electricity company may not disconnect the power supply.

4.0 The
matter is kept on Monday i.e. 31st
January 2011 to enable the learned advocate for the petitioner to
obtain specific instructions about the time frame, in which the
petitioner proposes to deposit this amount.

4.1 It
is made clear that if the proposal is not found reasonable by the
Court, the Court may resort to passing aforesaid directions.

[
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. ]

hiren

   

Top