{"id":170624,"date":"1982-10-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1982-10-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-electricity-vs-official-liquidator-high-court-on-13-october-1982"},"modified":"2017-09-06T06:58:08","modified_gmt":"2017-09-06T01:28:08","slug":"maharashtra-state-electricity-vs-official-liquidator-high-court-on-13-october-1982","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-electricity-vs-official-liquidator-high-court-on-13-october-1982","title":{"rendered":"Maharashtra State Electricity … vs Official Liquidator, High Court, … on 13 October, 1982"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Maharashtra State Electricity … vs Official Liquidator, High Court, … on 13 October, 1982<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1982 AIR 1497, \t\t 1983 SCR (1) 561<\/div>\n
Author: E Venkataramiah<\/div>\n
Bench: Venkataramiah, E.S. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, BOMBAY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nOFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT, ERNAKULAM, ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT13\/10\/1982\n\nBENCH:\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\nBENCH:\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\nERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1982 AIR 1497\t\t  1983 SCR  (1) 561\n 1982 SCC  (3) 358\t  1982 SCALE  (2)875\n\n\nACT:\n     Companies Act,  1956-Company gave\tbank  guarantee\t for\nsupply of  goods on  tenders-Company ordered to be wound up-\nAppellant restrained from realising the amount of guarantee-\nLiability of bank-Nature of.\n     Contract Act-Bank\tgave guarantee\tfor  a\tcompany\t for\nsupply of  goods against tenders Company ordered to be wound\nup-Liability of surety-Nature of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The appellant  Board invites  tenders for the supply of\ngoods.\tOne  of\t the  terms  of\t the  tenders  required\t the\nintending supplier  of goods  to pay  earnest  money  and\/or\nsecurity  to   the  Board   along  with\t the  tender  a\t sum\napproximately equivalent  to 10%  of the  estimated price of\ngoods tendered.\t But where an intending tenderer deposited a\nsum of\tRs. 50,000 either in cash or in any form approved by\nthe Board  such as a Bank guarantee he could offer to supply\ngoods of  any value either under one or more tenders without\ncomplying with the above condition.\n     In accordance  with the  terms of tender the company in\nliquidation offered a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 50,000\nfor supply  of goods  to the  Board.  As  security  for\t the\nguarantee, the\tBank took  from the company in liquidation a\nfixed deposit  receipt and  some quantity  of imported\tzinc\ningots and  the Bank  had certain rights in respect of these\nsecurities.\n     In August,\t 1973 the  Board called upon the Bank to pay\nto it  the guarantee  amount. In the meanwhile, however, the\nHigh  Court  ordered  the  winding  up\tof  the\t company  in\nliquidation. The  Bank then wrote to the Official Liquidator\nthat the  company in  liquidation was  liable to  the Bank a\nlarge sum  of money  one of  which was the sum of Rs. 50,000\ndemanded by the Board.\n     On application  by the  Official Liquidator the company\nJudge issued  an order\trestraining the Board from realising\nthe amount  from the  Bank on the ground that since the Bank\nwould have  recourse to\t the securities given by the company\nin liquidation\tfor realising  the  amount  paid  by  it  in\naccordance with\t the bank  guarantee  and  that\t since\tsuch\naction of the Bank would affect the assets of the company in\nliquidation, it\t was not  open to  the Board  to  claim\t the\namount of  guarantee from  the Bank  except as a creditor in\nthe winding  up proceedings.  A Division  Bench of  the High\nCourt dismissed the Board's appeal.\n562\n     On the  question whether  the Board  could recover from\nthe Bank the sum of Rs. 50,000 according to the terms of the\nbank guarantee\tand what  its effect would be on liquidation\nproceedings,\n     Allowing the Appeal,\n^\n     HELD: It  was not open to the company Judge to make any\norder under  the Companies  Act 1956  prohibiting the  Board\nfrom realising the amount guaranteed by the Bank as this had\nnothing to do with the assets of the company in liquidation.\n     [568-D]\n     The terms\tof the\tdocument on  the basis\tof which the\nBoard has  claimed the\tamount from  the Bank  constituted a\ncontract of guarantee and not a contract of indemnity. [566-\nF]\n     The three\ttransactions, namely (1) the bank guarantee,\n(2) the contract of supply between the Board and the Company\nin liquidation\tand (3) the document under which the Company\nin  liquidation\t gave  a  fixed\t deposit  receipt  and\tsome\nquantity of  zinc ingots as security are independent of each\nother in  so far  as their  legal incidents  are  concerned.\n[566-H; 567-A]\n     In order  to realise the guarantee amount of Rs. 50,000\nall that the Board had to do was to make a demand, within 48\nhours of which the Bank had to pay the sum to the Board. The\nBoard was  not required\t to prove any default on the part of\nthe Company  in liquidation.  Nor could\t the Bank  raise the\nplea that  it was  liable only\tto the\textent of  any\tloss\nsustained by  the Board. The Bank's liability to pay the sum\ndemanded by the Board was absolute and unconditional.\n[567-C-D]\n     The fact  that  the  principal  debtor  had  gone\tinto\nliquidation  would   not  have\tany  effect  on\t the  Bank's\nliability as  guarantor. Under\tsection 128  of\t the  Indian\nContract Act  the liability  of the  surety is\tco-extensive\nwith that  of the  principal debtor  unless it\tis otherwise\nprovided by  the contract.  A surety  is no doubt discharged\nunder section 134 of the Indian Contract Act by any contract\nbetween the  creditor and  the principal debtor by which the\nprincipal debtor  is released  or by  any act or omission of\nthe  creditor,\t the  legal  consequence  of  which  is\t the\ndischarge of the principal debtor. But a discharge which the\nprincipal  debtor   may\t secure\t  by  operation\t of  law  in\nbankruptcy (or\tin liquidation\tproceedings in the case of a\ncompany) does not absolve the surety of his liability.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   [567-D-F]\n     Jagannath Ganeshram  Aggarwala v. Shivnarayan Bhagirath\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     In re  Fitzegeorge Ex  parte Robson, [1905] 1 K.B. 462,
\nreferred to.\n<\/p>\n
     Punjab National  Bank Limited  v. Bikram Cotton Mills &
\nAnr.,<\/a> [1970] 2 S.C.R. 462, held inapplicable.\n<\/p>\n
     On payment of the sum demanded by the Board it was open
\nto the\tBank to have recourse to the securities given by the
\nCompany in liquidation. The
\n563<\/span>
\nBoard was  not concerned with what the Bank did to reimburse
\nitself. It  was the  Bank’s responsibility  to deal with the
\nsecurities held by it in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
     [568 C]<\/p>\n
&
\n     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal NO. 3182 of
\n1982.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tspecial leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order
\ndated the  13th November,  1978 of  the Kerala High Court in
\nM.F.A. No. 145 of 1976.\n<\/p>\n
     B.S. Bhasme and H.S. Parihar for the Appellant.
\n     K.N. Bhatt for Respondent No. 2.\n<\/p>\n
     A.S. Nambiar for the intervener.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     VENKATARAMIAH, J.\tThis is\t an appeal  by special leave
\nunder Article  136 of  the Constitution against the judgment
\nand order  dated November  13, 1978  of the  High  Court  of
\nKerala in M.F.A. No. 145 of 1976.\n<\/p>\n
     The facts\tleading to this appeal may be briefly stated
\nthus: The  appellant is\t the Maharashtra  State\t Electricity
\nBoard (hereinafter  referred to as ‘the Electricity Board’).
\nCochin Malleables  (P) Ltd.  (in  liquidation)\t(hereinafter
\nreferred to  as ‘the  Company in liquidation’) used to enter
\ninto contracts\twith the  Electricity Board  before  it\t was
\nordered to be wound up by the High Court of Kerala to supply
\ngoods to  the Electricity  Board pursuant  to tenders  which
\nwere being  issued from\t time to  time.\t One  of  the  terms
\nusually\t found\tin  such  tenders  was\tthat  the  intending
\nsupplier  of  goods  should  pay  as  earnest  money  and\/or
\nsecurity to  the Electricity  Board alongwith every tender a
\nsum approximately  equivalent to  10% of the estimated price
\nof the\tgoods in  question. There  was, however, a provision
\nfor exempting  payment of  such earnest\t money\tor  security
\ndeposit in  the case  of those\ttenderers who  would keep  a
\npermanent deposit  of Rs.  50,000 either  in cash  or in any
\nform approved by the Electricity Board and one such approved
\nform was  a bank  guarantee to\tthe tune  of Rs. 50,000. The
\neffect of  such deposit\t of Rs.\t 50,000 made by an intending
\ntenderer with the Electricity Board under this condition was
\nthat he\t acquired the  privilege of  offering his tender for
\nthe supply  of goods  of any  value to the Electricity Board
\nand of such tender being considered along-\n<\/p>\n
564<\/span><\/p>\n
with other  tenders made  by others  who had in the ordinary
\ncourse paid  10% of  the estimated cost of goods as security
\ndeposit as  per the  usual  condition.\tSuch  privilege\t was
\navailable to  him in  the case\tof any\ttender that he might
\nmake as\t long  as  the\tdeposit\t remained  intact  with\t the
\nElectricity Board.  In other  words, on\t depositing a sum of
\nRs. 50,000 an intending tenderer could offer to supply goods
\nof any\tvalue either  under  one  of  more  tenders  without
\ncomplying with\tthe condition  which required him to deposit
\nalongwith with\ttender\ta  sum\tequivalent  to\t10%  of\t the
\nestimated value\t of goods  which he  intended to supply. The
\nsecurity of  Rs. 50,000\t thus given  did not  relate to\t any
\nspecific tender\t but it was open to the Electricity Board to
\nappropriate the\t whole or  any part of it towards any amount
\ndue from the tenderer under any supply contract entered into
\nduring the  relevant  period.  Any  balance  which  remained
\nunadjusted became  refundable to  the person who had made it
\non demand  provided  that  there  was  no  other  subsisting
\nliability towards  which the  said balance could be adjusted
\nand on such refund being made the person ceased to enjoy the
\nexemption from\tthe requirement of making an earnest deposit
\nin respect of any future tender. Any bank guarantee given by
\nany such  intending tenderer  in lieu of the cash deposit of
\nRs. 0,000  was deemed  to be  equivalent to the cash deposit
\nmade on\t date of  the guarantee\t and the  Electricity  Board
\ncould realise the bank guarantee amount or any part of it at
\nits will  on any  day irrespective of whether any tender had
\nbeen made  by the person concerned during the period or not.
\nOn such\t realisation  of  the  bank  guarantee\tamount,\t the
\nElectricity Board  could deal with it in accordance with the
\nterms of  the contract\tas  if\tthe  said  amount  had\tbeen
\ndeposited with it in cash on the date of bank guarantee. The
\nliability of  the bank\twhich gave  the bank guarantee under
\nthese terms  was unconditional and did not vary according to
\nthe number  of tenders\toffered,  the  value  of  the  goods
\noffered for  sale under\t those tenders, and the defaults, if
\nany, committed by the tenderer in the supply of goods.\n<\/p>\n
     Pursuant to  the above term, the Company in liquidation
\noffered on  September 1, 1966 a bank guarantee for a sum not
\nexceeding Rs.  50,000 given  by the  Canara Bank  Ltd.\t(now
\nknown as  Canara Bank  and hereinafter\treferred to  as ‘the
\nBank’). The  relevant part  of the  said  guarantee  was  as
\nfollows
\n\t  “THE\t CANARA\t   BANK\t  LTD.”,    hereby    agrees
\n     unequivocally and\tunconditionally to  pay,  within  48
\n     (Forty eight)  hours, on  demand in  writing  from\t the
\n     Maharashtra
\n565<\/span>
\n     State Electricity Board or any officer authorised by it
\n     in this  behalf, of  any amount  upto and not exceeding
\n     Rs.50,000\/-(Rupees Fifty  thousand only)  to  the\tsaid
\n     Maharashtra State\tElectricity Board,  Bombay on behalf
\n     of M\/s  Cochin Malleables\t(Private) Ltd., Trichur, who
\n     have tendered  and\/ or  contracted\t or  may  tender  or
\n     contract hereafter for supply of materials equipment or
\n     service to\t the Maharashtra State Electricity Board and
\n     have been exempted from payment of earnest money and\/or
\n     security deposit against such tenders or contracts.”
\n     The original  period of guarantee was one year. It was,
\nhowever, extended from time to time and the guarantee was in
\nforce in  the year 1973. On August 27, 1973, the Electricity
\nBoard called  upon the\tBank to\t pay the guarantee amount of
\nRs. 50,000.  Thereafter reminders  were\t sent  and  a  final
\ndemand was  made on  May 23,  1974. In the meanwhile Company
\nPetition No.  14 of  1973 was  filed on July 30, 1973 on the
\nfile of\t the High  Court of Kerala for the winding up of the
\nCompany in liquidation. By an order dated September 16, 1974
\nthe High  Court ordered\t the winding  up of  the Company  in
\nliquidation and\t directed the  Official Liquidator  to\ttake
\ncharge of its affairs. In view of these proceedings the Bank
\nwrote to the Official Liquidator on November 4, 1974 stating
\nthat the  Company in  Liquidation was  liable to the Bank to
\nthe extent  of Rs. 1,64,353.12 on two heads one of which was
\nthe sum\t of Rs.\t 50,000 demanded by the Electricity Board as
\nper the\t terms of  the bank  guarantee\treferred  to  above.
\nThereupon, the\tOfficial  Liquidator  filed  an\t application
\nunder section  456(2) of  the Companies\t Act, 1956 read with
\nRule 9\tof the\tCompanies (Court)  Rules,  1959\t before\t the
\nCompany\t Judge\t praying  for\tan  order   restraining\t the
\nElectricity Board  from realising  the amount covered by the
\nguarantee  on\tthe  ground   that  since   the\t Company  in
\nliquidation had\t been ordered to be wound up the Electricity
\nBoard could not claim the amount of guarantee from the Bank.
\nThe Electricity\t Board contended  that\tthe  amount  of\t Rs.
\n50,000 was not being claimed as a creditor of the Company in
\nliquidation but\t on the\t basis of  the bank  guarantee,\t the
\nliability under\t which was  not affected  by the liquidation
\nproceedings. The  learned Company  Judge upheld\t the plea of
\nthe Official  Liquidator and issued an order restraining the
\nElectricity Board from realising the amount from the Bank on
\nthe ground  that since\tthe Bank  would have recourse to the
\nsecurities given  by the  Company in liquidation to the Bank
\nfor realising  the amount  paid by it in accordance with the
\nbank guarantee and such
\n566<\/span>
\naction of the Bank would affect the assets of the Company in
\nliquidation, it\t was not  open to  the Electricity  Board to
\nclaim the  amount of  guarantee from  the Bank\texcept as  a
\ncreditor in  the winding  up proceedings. An appeal filed by
\nthe Electricity\t Board before the Division Bench of the High
\nCourt was dismissed. This appeal is filed by the Electricity
\nBoard against the order of the Division Bench.\n<\/p>\n
     After the\tpetition for special leave was filed in this
\nCourt in  July 1979,  notice  was  issued  to  the  Official
\nLiquidator. He\thas written  a letter  to this Court stating
\nthat the  High Court of Kerala has since sanctioned a scheme
\nfor reconstruction of the Company in liquidation by an order
\ndated November\t6, 1979,  subject to  certain conditions and
\nthat the  winding up  proceedings are directed to be kept in
\nabeyance till  December 31, 1982. He has further stated that
\nhe has\thanded\tover  all  the\tassets\tof  the\t Company  in
\nliquidation to\tthe new\t management as per directions of the
\nHigh Court  and that he has no funds to participate in these
\nproceedings.  The   Managing  Director\tof  the\t Company  in
\nliquidation has\t entered appearance  as an intervener and is
\nrepresented by\ta  counsel.  The  learned  counsel  for\t the
\nintervener has\tbeen heard in this appeal. He has also filed
\nhis submissions in writing.\n<\/p>\n
     The principal  question which  arises for determination
\nin this\t appeal relates\t to the\t effect of  the\t liquidation
\nproceedings on the right of the Electricity Board to recover
\nfrom the  Bank the sum of Rs. 50,000 as per the terms of the
\nbank guarantee.\t It cannot be disputed that the terms of the
\ndocument on  the basis\tof which  the Electricity  Board has
\nclaimed the  amount from  the Bank  constitute a contract of
\nguarantee and  not  a  contract\t of  indemnity.\t Under\tthat
\ndocument the  Bank has\tundertaken to  pay  any\t amount\t not
\nexceeding Rs.  50,000 to  the Electricity Board within forty
\neight hours  of\t the  demand.  The  payment  of\t the  amount
\nguaranteed by  the Bank is not made dependent upon the proof
\nof any default on the part of the Company in liquidation. It
\nmay be\tthat in\t order to  give the said guarantee, the Bank
\nhad in\tits turn  taken as  security  from  the\t Company  in
\nliquidation certain  fixed deposit  receipt  and  a  certain
\nquantity of  imported zinc  ingots and\tthat  the  Bank\t had
\ncertain rights\tin respect  of those  securities. There\t may
\nalso be\t some claims  or counter-claims\t arising out  of the
\ncontracts of  supply entered  into between  the\t Electricity
\nBoard and  the Company\tin liquidation. But the transactions
\nviz. (1)  the bank  guarantee executed by the Bank in favour
\nof the Electricity Board, (2) the
\n567<\/span>
\ncontracts of  supply entered  into between  the\t Electricity
\nBoard and  the Company\tin liquidation\tand (3) the document
\nunder which  the Company  in liquidation  had given  a fixed
\ndeposit receipt\t and certain  quantity\tof  zinc  ingots  as
\nsecurity to  the Bank  for executing the letter of guarantee
\nin favour  of the  Electricity Board are independent of each
\nother in so far as their legal incidents are concerned.\n<\/p>\n
     Under the\tbank guarantee\tin  question  the  Bank\t has
\nundertaken to  pay the\tElectricity Board  any sum  upto Rs.
\n50,000 and  in order  to realise it all that the Electricity
\nBoard has  to do  is to\t make a\t demand. Within\t forty eight
\nhours of  such demand  the Bank has to pay the amount to the
\nElectricity Board which is not under any obligation to prove
\nany default on the part of the Company in liquidation before
\nthe amount  demanded is paid. The Bank cannot raise the plea
\nthat it\t is liable  only to  the extent of any loss that may
\nhave been  sustained by\t the Electricity  Board owing to any
\ndefault on  the part  of the  supplier\tof  goods  i.e.\t the
\ncompany\t in  liquidation.  The\tliability  is  absolute\t and
\nunconditional. The fact that the Company in liquidation i.e.
\nthe principal  debtor has  gone into  liquidation also would
\nnot have  any effect  on the  liability of the Bank i.e. the
\nguarantor. Under section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, the
\nliability of  the surety  is co-extensive  with that  of the
\nprincipal debtor  unless it  is otherwise  provided  by\t the
\ncontract. A  surety is no doubt discharged under section 134
\nof the\tIndian Contract\t Act by\t any  contract\tbetween\t the
\ncreditor and  the principal  debtor by\twhich the  principal
\ndebtor is  released  or\t by  any  act  or  omission  of\t the
\ncreditor, the legal consequence of which is the discharge of
\nthe principal  debtor. But  a discharge\t which the principal
\ndebtor may  secure by  operation of law in bankruptcy (or in
\nliquidation proceedings\t in the\t case of a company) does not
\nabsolve the surety of his liability (See Jagannath Ganeshram
\nAggarwala v. Shivnarayan Bhagirath & Ors.(1). See also In re
\nFitzgeorge Ex  parte Robson(2).\t In view  of the unequivocal
\nlanguage of  the letter\t of guarantee,\tno reliance  can  be
\nplaced by the Company in liquidation on the decision of this
\nCourt in Punjab National Bank Limited v. Bikram Cotton Mills
\n& Anr.<\/a>(3) in which the surety’s liability was limited to the
\n‘ultimate balance’  found due  from the principal debtor and
\nthe  said  balance  had\t not  been  ascertained\t before\t the
\ninstitution of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
568<\/span><\/p>\n
The facts of this case are distinguishable from the facts in
\nthe case  before us.  As mentioned  earlier the liability of
\nthe Bank  to pay  the amount  as per the letter of guarantee
\ndid not\t depend upon  prior proof of any default on the part
\nof the\tCompany in  liquidation. Whether  the whole  of\t Rs.
\n50,000 should  be demanded  or\tany  lesser  sum  should  be
\ndemanded from the Bank was entirely within the choice of the
\nElectricity Board.  The Bank  has,  therefore,\tto  pay\t the
\namount due  under the letter of guarantee given by it to the
\nElectricity Board. On such payment it is open to the Bank to
\nhave recourse  to the  securities given\t by the\t Company  in
\nliquidation for\t the purpose  of the  issue of the letter of
\nguarantee. The\tElectricity Board is not concerned with what
\nthe Bank  does in  order to  reimburse itself  after  making
\npayment\t of   the  amount   guaranteed\tby  it.\t It  is\t the
\nresponsibility of  the Bank to deal with the securities held
\nby it  in accordance  with law. It was not, however, open to
\nthe Company  Judge to make any order under the Companies Act
\nprohibiting the\t Electricity Board from realising the amount
\nguaranteed by  the Bank\t as this  had nothing to do with the
\nassets of  the Company\tin liquidation.\t The  order  of\t the
\nCompany Judge  and the\tJudgment of  the Division  Bench  in
\nappeal are,  therefore, liable\tto be  set aside be and they
\nare accordingly set aside.\n<\/p>\n
     Before concluding this judgment, we place on record the
\nsubmission made\t on behalf  of the Electricity Board that it
\nis open\t to the\t Company in  liquidation to prefer any claim
\narising\t out   of  the\t supply\t contracts  as\tagainst\t the
\nElectricity Board.  It is also open to the Electricity Board
\nto claim any sum that may be due to it under such contracts.
\nIn considering\tthe above  mutual rights  and liabilities of
\nthe Electricity Board and the Company in liquidation the sum
\nto be  received by the Electricity Board from the Bank under
\nthe  letter   of  guarantee  will  have\t to  be\t taken\tinto
\nconsideration and dealt with in accordance with the terms of
\nthe supply contracts.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
P.B.R.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n569<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Maharashtra State Electricity … vs Official Liquidator, High Court, … on 13 October, 1982 Equivalent citations: 1982 AIR 1497, 1983 SCR (1) 561 Author: E Venkataramiah Bench: Venkataramiah, E.S. (J) PETITIONER: MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, BOMBAY Vs. RESPONDENT: OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT, ERNAKULAM, ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT13\/10\/1982 BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-170624","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMaharashtra State Electricity ... vs Official Liquidator, High Court, ... on 13 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-electricity-vs-official-liquidator-high-court-on-13-october-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Official Liquidator, High Court, ... on 13 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-electricity-vs-official-liquidator-high-court-on-13-october-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1982-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-06T01:28:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-state-electricity-vs-official-liquidator-high-court-on-13-october-1982#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-state-electricity-vs-official-liquidator-high-court-on-13-october-1982\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Maharashtra State Electricity … vs Official Liquidator, High Court, … on 13 October, 1982\",\"datePublished\":\"1982-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-06T01:28:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-state-electricity-vs-official-liquidator-high-court-on-13-october-1982\"},\"wordCount\":2556,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-state-electricity-vs-official-liquidator-high-court-on-13-october-1982#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-state-electricity-vs-official-liquidator-high-court-on-13-october-1982\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-state-electricity-vs-official-liquidator-high-court-on-13-october-1982\",\"name\":\"Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Official Liquidator, High Court, ... on 13 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1982-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-06T01:28:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-state-electricity-vs-official-liquidator-high-court-on-13-october-1982#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-state-electricity-vs-official-liquidator-high-court-on-13-october-1982\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-state-electricity-vs-official-liquidator-high-court-on-13-october-1982#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maharashtra State Electricity … vs Official Liquidator, High Court, … on 13 October, 1982\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Official Liquidator, High Court, ... on 13 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-electricity-vs-official-liquidator-high-court-on-13-october-1982","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Official Liquidator, High Court, ... on 13 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-electricity-vs-official-liquidator-high-court-on-13-october-1982","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1982-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-06T01:28:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-electricity-vs-official-liquidator-high-court-on-13-october-1982#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-electricity-vs-official-liquidator-high-court-on-13-october-1982"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Maharashtra State Electricity … vs Official Liquidator, High Court, … on 13 October, 1982","datePublished":"1982-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-06T01:28:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-electricity-vs-official-liquidator-high-court-on-13-october-1982"},"wordCount":2556,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-electricity-vs-official-liquidator-high-court-on-13-october-1982#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-electricity-vs-official-liquidator-high-court-on-13-october-1982","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-electricity-vs-official-liquidator-high-court-on-13-october-1982","name":"Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Official Liquidator, High Court, ... on 13 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1982-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-06T01:28:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-electricity-vs-official-liquidator-high-court-on-13-october-1982#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-electricity-vs-official-liquidator-high-court-on-13-october-1982"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-electricity-vs-official-liquidator-high-court-on-13-october-1982#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maharashtra State Electricity … vs Official Liquidator, High Court, … on 13 October, 1982"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170624","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=170624"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170624\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=170624"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=170624"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=170624"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}