{"id":242876,"date":"2009-07-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-rajdhani-power-ltd-vs-saurashtra-color-tones-pvt-ltd-on-2-july-2009"},"modified":"2017-11-21T07:17:44","modified_gmt":"2017-11-21T01:47:44","slug":"bses-rajdhani-power-ltd-vs-saurashtra-color-tones-pvt-ltd-on-2-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-rajdhani-power-ltd-vs-saurashtra-color-tones-pvt-ltd-on-2-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt.Ltd. & … on 2 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt.Ltd. & … on 2 July, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Ajit Prakash Shah<\/div>\n
       *             HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n       +                         LPA No.2725\/2005\n\n\n       %                              Date of decision : 2nd July, 2009\n\n\n\n       BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD                    .... Appellant\n                Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, Senior Advocate with\n                Mr.Amar Gupta, Mr.Amit Kapur,\n                Mr.Anupam Varma, Mr.Mayank Mishra,\n                Mr.Ritesh Kumar, Mr.Divyam Agarwal,\n                Mr.Arjun Mahajan and Mr.Sandeep Bajaj,\n                Advocates\n\n                                 versus\n\n      SAURASHTRA COLOR TONES PVT.LTD\n      & ANR.                                 ... Respondents\n             Through: Mr.S.C. Nigam with Mr.A.Nayak,\n                      Advocates\n                      Mr.M.S.Gupta, Dy. Director(Law) DERC\n                      in person\n      CORAM:\n      HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE\n      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL\n      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR\n\n      1.Whether reporters of the local news papers\n         be allowed to see the judgment? Y\n      2.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Y\n      3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Y\n\n\n      AJIT PRAKASH SHAH, CHIEF JUSTICE:\n\n\n      RELEVANT FACTS\n\n\n   1. The       appellant   is    a   distribution   company   engaged          in\n\n      distribution of electricity in its area of supply under a\n\n\nLPA 2725\/2005                                                    Page 1 of 40\n       statutory licence issued by the respondent No.2, Delhi\n\n      Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC for short). The\n\n      respondent No.2 is constituted and established under Section\n\n      17 of the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1988 (for\n\n      short the \"ERC Act\"). The respondent No.1, a company who\n\n      is the original writ petitioner, purchased an industrial shed\n\n      being Shed No.1 Category-1, DSIDC Complex, Nangloi, Delhi.\n\n      Initially connection No.002-156-022\/IP was sanctioned for a\n\n      load of 89.52 KW in the name of the original allottee, Dev\n\n      Arora. Inspection on April 22, 1997 allegedly revealed a\n\n      connected load of 169.11 KW and, therefore, certain\n\n      demands were raised.        Dev Arora filed a suit in the civil\n\n      court, that was eventually dismissed.      In this connection a\n\n      writ petition being CWP 715 of 2003 was also filed by Dev\n\n      Arora which is pending in this Court.       On transfer of the\n\n      premises in its name, the first respondent applied for\n\n      resumption of supply of electricity vide applications dated\n\n      November 30, 2002 and December 30, 2002. The appellant,\n\n      as required by Clause 2.1(iv) of 'General Conditions of\n\n      Supply\" contained in the Tariff Order issued by the DERC in\n\n      exercise of its powers under Section 49 of the Electricity\n\n      Supply Act, 1948 (for short the \"Supply Act\") asked the first\n\n      respondent   to   deposit    development    charges,    advance\n\n\n\nLPA 2725\/2005                                             Page 2 of 40\n       consumption deposit and \"all such charges as may be\n\n      applicable including   the outstanding    dues against the\n\n      premises and\/or disconnected connections as a condition\n\n      precedent for resumption of electricity supply.      The first\n\n      respondent therefore approached this Court by filing Writ\n\n      Petition No.2479 of 2003 contending inter alia that a\n\n      purchaser of the property cannot be asked or coerced to pay\n\n      the amount which the appellant as the licencee may be\n\n      claiming from the former consumer.\n\n\n   2. The writ petition was heard and disposed of by the learned\n\n      single Judge along with five connected matters by a common\n\n      judgment dated November 9, 2005.          The learned single\n\n      Judge, following the decisions of the Supreme Court in Isha\n\n      Marbles   v.   BSEB,   (1995)   2   SCC   648,   Ahmedabad\n\n      Electricity Company Ltd v. Gujarat Inn Pvt. Ltd,<\/a> (2004)\n\n      3 SCC 587, Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry,<\/a> (1974)\n\n      2 SCC 231 and a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Sona\n\n      Cooperative Housing Society v. Gujarat Electricity\n\n      Board, AIR 2004 Guj 26 and also judgments of Delhi High\n\n      Court in Inndev Engineers (India) P. Ltd v. Delhi Vidyut\n\n      Board, AIR<\/a> 2002 Delhi 478, Shikha Properties Private Ltd\n\n      v. NDMC,<\/a> (90) 2001 DLT 18, held, inter alia, that a\n\n      distribution company is not entitled to recover arrears of\n\n\nLPA 2725\/2005                                           Page 3 of 40\n       electricity charges pertaining to the electricity connection to\n\n      the premises from its new owner\/occupier who seeks\n\n      resumption of supply of electricity unless it establishes mala\n\n      fides of the old and new consumer or the new consumer was\n\n      in fact a heir or successor of the defaulting party or had\n\n      actual notice of the existence of arrears.       In any event,\n\n      according to the learned single Judge, disconnection as a\n\n      stand-alone action without initiation of recovery proceedings\n\n      against the actual consumer (not the subsequent purchaser)\n\n      by way of civil suit for recovery of arrears will be illegal. The\n\n      learned single Judge further held that \"General Conditions of\n\n      Supply\", as contained in the Tariff Order for the years 1997-\n\n      98 and 2001-02 cannot form part of \"Tariff\" as contemplated\n\n      under Section 49 of the Supply Act but are essentially\n\n      regulations under Section 79(j) of the Supply Act which must\n\n      be approved by the State Legislature under Section 79A of\n\n      the said Act. The learned single Judge, therefore, quashed\n\n      and set aside the General Conditions of Supply contained in\n\n      the Tariff Orders of 1997-98 and 2001-02.        Consequently,\n\n      the writ petition was allowed and the appellant was directed\n\n      to restore the electricity supply to the first respondent\n\n      without insisting on clearance of the arrears of electricity\n\n      charges.\n\n\n\nLPA 2725\/2005                                              Page 4 of 40\n    3. At this stage it may be noted that by the common judgment\n\n      dated 9th November 2005 the learned Single Judge allowed\n\n      Writ Petition (C) No. 2479\/2003 filed by the Respondent\n\n      herein (Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt. Limited), the Writ\n\n      Petition (C) No. 1105\/2002 filed by Anil Kumar Singh           and\n\n      Writ Petition (C) No. 3996\/2003 by Munni Devi (deceased)\n\n      through her legal heirs. However, Writ Petition (C) No.\n\n      3533\/2003 filed by Madhu Garg and J.B. Garg, Writ Petition\n\n      (C) No. 10586\/2004 by Charan Jeet and Writ Petition (C) No.\n\n      7638\/2003 filed by Meera Devi Jain were dismissed.            Writ\n\n      Petition (Civil) No. 3532 of 2002 by Madhu Garg and J.B. Garg\n\n      was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground\n\n      that clause 6 of the sale deed by which she purchased the\n\n      premises in question from the previous owner clearly\n\n      stipulated that she would have to bear the liability of clearing\n\n      the arrears of electricity dues attaching to the premises.\n\n\n   4. Consequently, against the common judgment dated 9 th\n\n      November 2005 of the learned Single Judge, BSES Rajdhani\n\n      Power Limited (which was aggrieved by the writ petition of\n\n      the Respondent herein being allowed) filed the present\n\n      appeal LPA No. 2725 of 2005, and Madhu Garg and JB Garg\n\n      filed LPA No. 223-24 of 2006. The appeals by Madhu Garg\n\n      and J.B. Garg were finally heard on the first hearing i.e 1st\n\n\nLPA 2725\/2005                                             Page 5 of 40\n       February 2006 and judgment reserved. Thereafter the\n\n      Division Bench heard some of the other appeals, involving a\n\n      similar question. The present appeal was heard finally on 8 th\n\n      March 2006 and judgment reserved.\n\n\n   5. The Division Bench delivered a judgment in Madhu Garg v.\n\n      North Delhi Power Limited<\/a> on 22nd March 2006 [129\n\n      (2006) DLT 213 (DB)]. It is plain from para 22 of the\n\n      judgment that the Division Bench concurred with the\n\n      judgment of the learned Single Judge as regards dismissal of\n\n      Madhu Garg's writ petition. However in the remaining\n\n      portion of its judgment, the Division Bench disagreed with\n\n      the learned Single Judge on the interpretation of the relevant\n\n      statutory provision.    The Division Bench categorically held\n\n      that the new owner can be compelled to pay electricity dues\n\n      of previous owner on transfer of premises. It was held that\n\n      there is no distinction between the occupier of the premises\n\n      who was aware of the outstanding electricity dues against\n\n      the previous owner\/tenant and one who was not aware of it.\n\n      In   either   case   dues   have   to   be   paid   by     the     new\n\n      owner\/occupier before supply can be continued\/restored in\n\n      view of Clause 2.1(iv) of the General Conditions of Supply\n\n      which are statutory in nature (being a delegated legislation)\n\n      and question of bona fides or mala fides do not arise. Also,\n\n\nLPA 2725\/2005                                                  Page 6 of 40\n       there is no requirement for a licensee to first initiate\n\n      recovery proceedings by filing a civil suit against that\n\n      consumer before disconnecting the supply.        The Division\n\n      Bench further held that there is no illegality in Clause 2.1 of\n\n      General Conditions of Supply as it comes within the purview\n\n      of Tariff Order framed by the DERC as well as provisions of\n\n      Section 21(2) of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short the\n\n      \"1910 Act\") and Section 49 of the Supply Act.          General\n\n      Conditions of Supply do not require approval of State\n\n      Legislature under Section 79A of the Supply Act as they are\n\n      not regulations made under Section 79 of the said Act. The\n\n      Division Bench also held that the electricity dues in respect\n\n      of the electricity supply to premises, if permitted to be\n\n      equated with contractual claims of damages, it would\n\n      encourage dishonest consumers to raise some dispute or\n\n      other in respect of such arrears and evade consequences of\n\n      non-payment of electricity charges namely, disconnection\/\n\n      non-resumption of supply.\n\n\n   6. It appears that although orders were reserved in the present\n\n      appeal on 8th March 2006 and therefore in view of the\n\n      opinion already expressed by the Division        Bench in its\n\n      judgment dated 22nd March 2006 in Madhu Garg the\n\n      present appeal ought to have been allowed, for some reason\n\n\nLPA 2725\/2005                                            Page 7 of 40\n       the Division Bench did not pass that order. Instead on 23 rd\n\n      March 2006 the Division Bench passed an order directing the\n\n      present appeal to be listed for further hearing on 26 th April\n\n      2006.\n\n\n   7. Meanwhile Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2310\/2007 was filed by\n\n      Suresh Rekhi and Mahesh Kumar, who were subsequent\n\n      purchasers of a shed in Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New\n\n      Delhi, challenging the demand raised by the distribution\n\n      company (BSES Rajdhani Power Limited) that the arrears of\n\n      electricity dues concerning the said premises should be first\n\n      paid before a fresh electricity connection could be granted.\n\n      By an order dated 25th April 2006 the learned Single Judge of\n\n      this Court, following the judgment of the Division Bench in\n\n      Madhu         Garg   v.   NDPL   dismissed   the    writ    petition.\n\n      Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition Suresh Rekhi\n\n      and Mahesh Kumar filed LPA Nos. 1051-52 of 2006. The said\n\n      LPA was listed before the Division Bench of this Court\n\n      presided over by Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice. On 26th\n\n      May 2006 the following order was passed in the said LPA:\n\n\n                \"LPA 1051-52\/2006\n\n\n                In view of the judgment rendered         by the\n                Division Bench in Madhu Garg Vs. North Delhi\n                Power Limited (LPA 223-24\/2006), whether\n\n\nLPA 2725\/2005                                                Page 8 of 40\n                 under general condition of supply would also\n                include a previous tenant in the premises or\n                previous owner, notice thereof which has not\n                been received by the present incumbent who\n                seeks to get the electricity supply from the\n                respondent, shall also be covered under the\n                said definition, creates some doubt in our\n                mind. Therefore, in view of the said judgment,\n                we would like this question to be answered by\n                a larger Bench of three Judges.\n\n\n                Notice be issued to the respondent to show\n                cause as to why this appeal be not admitted,\n                by ordinary process as well as by registered\n                A.D. cover on filing of process fee returnable\n                on 19.10.2006.\n\n\n\n                In the meanwhile, the impugned order is\n                stayed.\"\n\n\n\n\n   8. When the present LPA No. 2725 of 2005 was placed for\n\n      hearing on 19th September 2006 before the Division Bench\n\n      headed by the Acting Chief Justice, it was also directed to be\n\n      heard along with LPA Nos. 1051-52 of 2006. The Bench was\n\n      informed that an SLP had been filed in the Supreme Court\n\n      against the judgment of the Division Bench in Madhu Garg.\n\n\n\nLPA 2725\/2005                                              Page 9 of 40\n       The Bench then directed: \"To await the decision of the\n\n      Supreme Court or the decision of the larger Bench of three\n\n      judges.\"       It may be mentioned here that as far as the LPA\n\n      No. 1051-52 is concerned, learned counsel stated that he did\n\n      not wish to press the appeal and by an order dated 16th\n\n      January 2009 the said appeal was dismissed as such.\n\n\n   9. Thereafter the present appeal was kept adjourned awaiting\n\n      the decision of the Supreme Court in the SLP filed against the\n\n      judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Madhu Garg\n\n      v. NDPL (supra). However, this Court decided to hear the\n\n      case finally since it appeared that the recent decision of the\n\n      Supreme Court in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam\n\n      Limited v. M\/s. DVS Steels & Alloys Pvt. Limited JT<\/a>\n\n      (2008) (12) SC 672 covers the issue squarely.\n\n\n   10.          For greater clarity the question referred by the order\n\n      dated 26th May 2006 passed in LPA No. 1051-52 of 2006 may\n\n      be reframed as under:\n\n\n                Whether in terms of clause 2.1 of the General\n\n                Conditions of Supply contained in the Tariff Order dated\n\n                23rd May 2001 issued by Delhi Electricity Regulation\n\n                Commission (DERC), in terms of powers vested in it\n\n                under Section 28 (2) of the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act\n\n\n\nLPA 2725\/2005                                                Page 10 of 40\n                 2000 (Reforms Act), can the distribution company insist\n\n                that an applicant for a fresh electricity connection\n\n                should first clear the arrears of the electricity dues\n\n                attaching to the premises in question notwithstanding\n\n                the fact that the said arrears accrued on account of the\n\n                non-payment    of   the   demand    by   the   previous\n\n                occupant\/owner of the premises.\n\n\n      ARGUMENTS\n\n\n   11.          Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, learned senior counsel representing\n\n      the appellant strenuously contended that conditions of\n\n      supply are statutory in character and have statutory force\n\n      and they are not \"regulations\" as contemplated by Section\n\n      79(j) of the Supply Act. In this connection he relied upon the\n\n      decision of a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in\n\n      Hyderabad Vanaspati v. APSEB (1998) 4 SCC 470\n\n      wherein it was held that even in absence of an individual\n\n      contract, the terms and conditions of supply notified by the\n\n      Board will be applicable to the consumer and he would be\n\n      bound by them.          Mr.Chandhiok, relying upon a Division\n\n      Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in MSEB v.\n\n      MERC AIR         2003 Bombay 398 stressed that the General\n\n      Conditions of Supply are part of a Tariff Order issued by the\n\n      DERC. He submitted that the General Conditions of Supply\n\nLPA 2725\/2005                                               Page 11 of 40\n       do not require to be placed before the State Legislature\n\n      under Section 79A of the Supply Act as they are not\n\n      regulations made under Section 79.              Mr.Chandhiok also\n\n      sought to distinguish the decisions of the Supreme Court in\n\n      Isha Marbles and Ahmedabad Electricity Company\n\n      Limited on the ground that in those cases there was no\n\n      statutory provision which empowered the authorities to\n\n      refuse electricity supply for outstanding dues of the previous\n\n      owner. However, he pointed out that, in the present case\n\n      there is a clear statutory provision embodied in the General\n\n      Conditions   of    Supply   to    that    effect.     According          to\n\n      Mr.Chandhiok      DERC   being     a     statutory   commission          is\n\n      empowered under Section 28(2) of the Delhi Electricity\n\n      Reforms Act, 2000 (for short the \"Reforms Act\") read with\n\n      Section 49 of the Supply Act to prescribe the terms and\n\n      conditions for the determination of supply of electricity. He\n\n      submitted that the Tariff Order issued by the DERC is\n\n      statutory in character and as such is binding on the first\n\n      respondent. He further submitted that the decision in Union\n\n      of India v. Raman Iron Foundry<\/a> (supra) stands overruled\n\n      by    subsequent    judgment      of     the   Supreme     Court         in\n\n      H.M.Kamaluddin Ansari            v. Union of India,<\/a> (1983) 4 SCC\n\n      417 and accepted as overruled in Sant Ram & Co v. State\n\n\n\nLPA 2725\/2005                                                  Page 12 of 40\n       of Rajasthan, (1997) 1 SCC 147 and ONGC v. Saw Pipes,\n\n      (2003) 5 SCC 705,      In any event, according to him, the\n\n      arrears on account of charges for electricity supply can\n\n      never be equated and treated at par with contractual claims\n\n      of damages, which was the subject matter of the decision in\n\n      Raman Iron Foundry case.        This is for the reason that\n\n      electricity is public property and any arrangement for supply\n\n      thereof, though in form of a contract, partakes the character\n\n      of a statutory contract since the terms and conditions thereof\n\n      are statutory in nature. Finally, he submitted that the issue\n\n      now stands concluded by a recent decision of the Supreme\n\n      Court in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam              Ltd v.\n\n      M\/s. DVS Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd, JT<\/a> 2008 (12) SC 672\n\n      wherein a two Judge Bench has held that where the\n\n      purchaser of a premises approaches the distributor seeking a\n\n      fresh electricity connection to its premises for supply of\n\n      electricity, the distributor can stipulate as one of the\n\n      conditions of supply that the arrears due in relation to supply\n\n      of electricity made to the premises when it was in occupation\n\n      of the previous owner\/occupant should be cleared before the\n\n      electricity supply is restored to the premises or a fresh\n\n      connection is provided to the premises.\n\n\n\n\nLPA 2725\/2005                                            Page 13 of 40\n    12.          In reply, Mr.S.C.Nigam, learned counsel appearing for\n\n      the respondent No.1 submitted that law stands settled by the\n\n      Supreme Court in Isha Marbles case wherein the Court\n\n      while expounding Sections 2(c), 24 and Clause 6 of\n\n      Schedule-I of the 1910 Act have categorically ruled that the\n\n      subsequent purchaser cannot be subject to the condition of\n\n      discharging the liability of the former owner in respect of\n\n      supply in the premises before grant of an electricity\n\n      connection to the subsequent purchaser. According to him\n\n      Isha       Marbles,   which    was    followed   in   Ahmedabad\n\n      Electricity Company Limited, is applicable not only to\n\n      auction purchasers but also to subsequent transferees.\n\n      Further, according to him the only remedy of the appellant is\n\n      to enforce its claim by a civil suit against the former\n\n      owner\/consumer         and    forfeiting   the   security    amount\n\n      deposited by him.       Mr.Nigam contended that the condition\n\n      contained in Clause 2.1(iv) of the Conditions of Supply is\n\n      ultra vires the Supply Act and the Reforms Act.         He pointed\n\n      out that the Supply Act in Section 79 gives power to the\n\n      Electricity Board to make regulations not inconsistent with\n\n      the Act.       While enumerating the matters on which the\n\n      regulations are to be made, the regulations made in order to\n\n      be valid are required to be laid before the State Legislature\n\n\n\nLPA 2725\/2005                                                 Page 14 of 40\n       as per Section 79A of the Act. According to him DERC under\n\n      the ERC Act is empowered to fix the tariff order which will not\n\n      include terms and conditions of supply for which the DERC is\n\n      required to frame regulations under Section 79 of the Supply\n\n      Act read with Section 28 of the Reform Act. Learned counsel\n\n      referred to the celebrated judgment in Taylor v. Taylor,\n\n      (1879) 1 Chancery Division     426 where Justice Jessel M.R.\n\n      adopted the rule that where a power is given to do a certain\n\n      thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or\n\n      not at all and that other methods of performance are\n\n      necessarily forbidden. He submitted that the rule laid down\n\n      in Taylor v. Taylor has been followed by the Supreme Court\n\n      in Ram Chander v. Govind, AIR 1975 SC 915 and several\n\n      other cases.\n\n\n      LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK\n\n\n   13.          Before adverting to the rival contentions it is\n\n      necessary to refer to the relevant provisions in various\n\n      enactments governing the legal regime of the distribution of\n\n      electricity. The Electricity Act was passed originally in 1903\n\n      but it was repealed by the 1910 Act which amended the law\n\n      relating to supply and use of electrical energy. The said Act\n\n      was not a complete code on the subject. It was apparently\n\n      found to be inadequate for coordinating development of\n\nLPA 2725\/2005                                            Page 15 of 40\n       electricity on the regional basis. Hence the Supply Act was\n\n      enacted in 1948 to provide for rationalisation of production\n\n      and supply of electricity and generally for taking measures\n\n      conducive to electricity development.     As part of power\n\n      sector reforms undertaken since mid 1990s legislative\n\n      initiatives undertaken which included enactment of the ERC\n\n      Act, the Reforms Act and the Electricity Act, 2003. We are\n\n      not concerned in the present case with the Electricity Act of\n\n      2003 as the matter pertains to the period prior to the\n\n      enactment of the said Act. We shall briefly refer to the\n\n      relevant provisions of the other enactments. Section 21(2) of\n\n      the 1910 Act empowers the licencee \"to regulate\" his\n\n      relations with persons \"who are or intend to become\n\n      consumers\". Section 21(2) is extracted and reproduced\n\n      hereinbelow:\n\n\n                \"21(2). A licencee may, with previous\n                sanction of the State Government, given after\n                consulting the State Electricity Board and\n                also the local authority, where the licencee is\n                not the local authority, make conditions not\n                inconsistent with this Act or with his licence\n                or with any rules made under this Act, to\n                regulate his relations with persons who are or\n                intend to become consumers, and, may, with\n                the like sanction given after the like\n                consultation, add to or alter or amend any\n                such conditions; and any conditions made by\n                a licencee without such sanction shall be null\n                and void.\"\n\n\n\nLPA 2725\/2005                                           Page 16 of 40\n    14.          While the 1910 Act deals with supply and use of energy\n\n      and the rights and obligations of the licencee, the Supply Act\n\n      deals with         statutory powers and functions of the Central\n\n      Electricity       Authority,   the   State   Electricity   Boards     and\n\n      generating companies. By virtue of Section 26 of the Supply\n\n      Act the \"State Electricity Board\" (Delhi Vidyut Board) was\n\n      vested with the powers and obligations of licencee under the\n\n      1910 Act.           Section 49(1) and (4) of the Supply Act\n\n      empowered the Board to supply electricity to any person\n\n      other than a licencee - i.e. the real consumer - upon such\n\n      terms and conditions as the Board thought fit and to frame\n\n      uniform tariffs for the purposes of such supply. Section 49(1),\n\n      which       is   material   for   our   purpose,   is   extracted     and\n\n      reproduced hereinbelow:\n\n\n                       \"49. Provision for the sale of electricity by the\n                       Board to persons other than licencees:- (i)\n                       subject to the provisions of this Act and of\n                       regulations, if any, made in this behalf, the\n                       Board may supply electricity to any person\n                       not being a licencee upon such terms and\n                       conditions as the Board thinks fit and may for\n                       the purposes of such supply frame uniform\n                       tariffs.\"\n\n\n   15.          Under Section 79 of the Supply Act, the Board was\n\n      empowered to make regulations to provide for various\n\n      matters set out therein and Clause (j) relates to principles\n\n\n\nLPA 2725\/2005                                                     Page 17 of 40\n       governing the supply of electricity by the Board to persons\n\n      other than licencees under Section 49. Regulations framed\n\n      under Section 79 are required to be placed before the State\n\n      Legislature by virtue of Section 79A.\n\n\n   16.          The ERC Act was enacted pursuant to the Minimum\n\n      National Action Plan for Power adopted in the Conference of\n\n      Chief Ministers and Section 22(1)(a) and (b) thereof deals\n\n      with the Commission's power to fix the tariff and     22(2)(d)\n\n      deals with licencing. DERC was constituted under the ERC\n\n      Act in December, 1999.\n\n\n   17.          The Reforms Act was also enacted as part of the\n\n      implementation of reforms in the power sector and was\n\n      enforced after receiving the assent of the President of India\n\n      under Article 364 of the Constitution of India. Section 11 of\n\n      the Reforms Act lays down the functions of the Commission\n\n      including, inter alia, the determination of the tariff for\n\n      electricity, wholesale, bulk, grid, or retail, as the case may\n\n      be.       Section 15 of the Reforms Act empowered the Delhi\n\n      Government and provided for the reorganisation of Delhi\n\n      Vidyut Board through a Statutory Transfer Scheme.        Under\n\n      sub-section (3) it was stipulated that \"such of the rights and\n\n      powers to be exercised by the Board under the Electricity\n\n      (supply) Act, 1948 (54 of 1948) as the case may be            by\n\nLPA 2725\/2005                                           Page 18 of 40\n       notification    in   the   official   gazette,   specified,   shall   be\n\n      exercisable by a company or companies established as the\n\n      case may be, under Section 14 for the purposes to discharge\n\n      all the functions and duties with which it is entrusted.\"\n\n      Section 20 of the Reforms Act relates to grant of licence and\n\n      the procedure therefor.        Section 22 of the Reforms Act lays\n\n      down the general conditions and powers of the licencee.\n\n      Section 22 reads as follows:\n\n\n                    \"22. General duties and powers of the\n                    licencees.-(1) It shall be the duty of the\n                    holder of a supply licence or a transmission\n                    licence in respect of a particular area to\n                    develop     and   maintain    an    efficient,\n                    coordinated and economical system of\n                    electricity supply or transmission in the\n                    area of transmission or area of supply as\n                    the case may be.\n                    (2) Each licencee and generating company\n                    in discharge of its duties shall comply with\n                    the provisions of the regulations framed\n                    from time to time governing the terms and\n                    conditions     for   the    operation   and\n                    maintenance of power system and electric\n                    supply lines.\"\n   18.          Section 28 of the Reforms Act deals with tariffs and\n\n      sub-section (2) thereof, which is material for our purpose\n\n      reads as follows:\n\n\n                    \"The Commission shall, subject to the\n                    provisions of sub-section(3), be entitled to\n                    prescribe the terms and conditions for the\n                    determination of the licensee's revenues\n                    and tariffs by regulations duly published in\n                    the official Gazette and in such other\n\nLPA 2725\/2005                                                   Page 19 of 40\n                      manner as the       Commission    considers\n                     appropriate.\"\n      Section 61 of the Reforms Act empowers the DERC to frame\n\n      regulations to carry out the purposes of the Act including the\n\n      matters enumerated therein.\n\n\n   19.          Under Section 63(2) of the Reforms Act all matters with\n\n      which the Delhi Vidyut Board was concerned with or dealing\n\n      with       all its functions were inherited by DERC and the\n\n      companies established under Section 14. Legislative intent\n\n      to save the powers of the Board under the 1910 Act as well\n\n      as the Supply Act (except those expressly excluded) and vest\n\n      the same in the successor entities including Commission as a\n\n      regulator is apparent on a bare reading of Section 63.\n\n      Section 63 is extracted and reproduced as below:\n\n\n                \"63. Effect of the Act on the Indian Electricity, 1910\n                and the Electricity(Supply) Act,1948.-\n\n                (1) Except as provided in section 63 of this Act, the\n                provisions of this   Act, notwithstanding that the\n                same are inconsistent with or contrary to the\n                provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 or the\n                Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 shall prevail in the\n                manner and to the extent provided in sub-section (3).\n\n                (2)   Subject to sub-section (1) in respect of all\n                matters in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the\n                Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, with which the Delhi\n                Vidyut Board has been concerned or dealing with,\n                upon the constitution of the Commission the\n                functions of the Board      shall be discharged by the\n                Commission and the companies established        under\n                section 14.\n\n\nLPA 2725\/2005                                                Page 20 of 40\n                      ............................\n<\/pre>\n
                (3) Subject to sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of
\n                this section, upon    the    establishment    of   the
\n                Commission the provisions of the Indian Electricity
\n                Act, 1910 and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 shall,
\n                in so far as the National Capital Territory of Delhi is
\n                concerned, shall be read subject to the following
\n                modifications and reservations, namely:-<\/p>\n
                THE INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT,1910<\/p>\n
                (i)    All references to State Electricity Board in the
\n                Indian Electricity Act, 1910 in so far as the National
\n                Capital Territory of Delhi is concerned shall be read
\n                as references to the Delhi Electricity Regulatory
\n                Commission or the companies established under
\n                section 14 or other licensees or wherever it relates to
\n                general policy matters, to the Government.<\/p>\n
                (ii)   In respect of matters provided in sections 3 to
\n                11, 28, 36(2), 49-A, and 50 and 51 of the Indian
\n                Electricity Act, 1910, to the extent this Act has made
\n                specific provisions, the provisions of the Indian
\n                Electricity Act 1910 shall not apply in the National
\n                Capital Territory of Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
                (iii) The provisions of all other sections of the Indian
\n                Electricity Act, 1910(9 of 1910) shall apply except
\n                that:-\n<\/p>\n
                      (a)   the term “licence”, “licensee”, “licence
\n                holder” shall have the meanings as defined under
\n                this Act and the licences shall be construed as having
\n                been issued under this Act;\n<\/p>\n
                      (b) the reference to the sections of the Indian
\n                Electricity Act, 1910 and the Electricity (Supply) Act,
\n                1948 in the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act,
\n                1910 shall be taken as reference to the
\n                corresponding provisions of this Act to the extent
\n                modified by this Act;\n<\/p>\n
                      (c)      the reference to arbitration in these<\/p>\n
LPA 2725\/2005                                                 Page 21 of 40<\/span>
\n                 provisions     except where it is by the Central
\n                Electricity Authority or the Central Electricity
\n                Regulatory Commission shall be taken as reference
\n                to the proceedings under section 40 of this Act and
\n                the arbitration procedure prescribed          under the
\n                Indian Electricity Act, 1910 shall not apply.<\/p>\n
                           ……………\n<\/p>\n
                THE ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACT,1948<\/p>\n
                (v)    All references to State Electricity Board in the
\n                Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 in so        far as the
\n                National Capital Territory of Delhi is concerned shall
\n                be read as references to the Delhi Electricity
\n                Regulatory Commission or the companies established
\n                under section 14 or other licensees or where it
\n                relates to general policy matters, to the Government.<\/p>\n
                (vi) In respect of matters provided in sections 5 to
\n                18, 19, 20, 23 to 27, 37, 40 to 45, 46 to 54, 56 to 69,
\n                72 and 75 to 83 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948,
\n                to the extent this Act has made specific provisions,
\n                the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act,1948
\n                shall not apply in the National Capital Territory of
\n                Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
                (vii)    The provisions of all other sections of the
\n                Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 shall apply except that\n<\/p>\n
                –\n<\/p>\n
                      (a) the term “licence” , “licensee” , “licence
\n                holder” shall have the meanings as defined under
\n                this Act and the licences shall be construed as having
\n                been issued under this Act;\n<\/p>\n
                      (b) the references to the sections of the Indian
\n                Electricity Act, 1910 and the Electricity (Supply) Act,
\n                1948 in the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act,
\n                1948 shall be taken as reference to the
\n                corresponding provisions of the Act to the extent
\n                modified by this Act;\n<\/p>\n
                   (c)      the reference to arbitration in these
\n                provisions except where it is by the Central
\n                Electricity Authority shall be taken as reference to<\/p>\n
LPA 2725\/2005                                                 Page 22 of 40<\/span>
\n                 the proceedings under section 40 of this Act and
\n                the arbitration procedure prescribed     under the
\n                Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (54 of 1948)shall not
\n                apply.\n<\/p>\n
   20.          The DERC issued its first Tariff Order in May 23, 2001<\/p>\n
      which was effective from June 1, 2001. The said Tariff Order<\/p>\n
      contained       General   Conditions   of   Supply   wherein      the<\/p>\n
      condition akin to the one contained in the earlier Tariff Order<\/p>\n
      issued by the DVB namely, condition 1(iv) of the General<\/p>\n
      Conditions of Supply. The said condition is extracted and<\/p>\n
      reproduced below:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                     “General Conditions of Supply
\n                     2.1 Supply of electricity in all cases is
\n                     subject to conditions that :<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     (iv) The application deposits development
\n                     charges, advance consumption deposit and
\n                     all such charges as may be applicable
\n                     including outstanding dues against the
\n                     premises        and\/or        disconnected
\n                     connection(s).”          (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
      DERC thereafter issued a Tariff Order for the year 2003 and<\/p>\n
      2003-2004 on June 26, 2004. It also contained provision<\/p>\n
      similar to the condition in Clause 2.1(iv) of the Conditions of<\/p>\n
      Supply.\n<\/p>\n
\n      WHETHER CONDITIONS OF SUPPLY ARE REQUIRED TO BE<\/p>\n
      PLACED BEFORE THE STATE LEGISLATURE<\/p>\n
LPA 2725\/2005                                                Page 23 of 40<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
    21.          As has been seen, Section 49 of the Supply Act<\/p>\n
      stipulates that the Board may formulate conditions of supply<\/p>\n
      after due consideration of the provisions of the Act and any<\/p>\n
      regulations made in this behalf whereas the power to make<\/p>\n
      regulations is embodied in Section 79 of the said Act. The<\/p>\n
      power conferred upon the Board under Section 49(1) is now<\/p>\n
      assumed by the DERC by virtue of Sections 19 and 20 read<\/p>\n
      with 63(2) of the Reforms Act.       DERC is vested with the<\/p>\n
      power to frame tariff and as a part of the licencing and<\/p>\n
      regulations making process to stipulate conditions governing<\/p>\n
      terms of supply in terms of Sections 11, 19, 20 and 63(2) of<\/p>\n
      the Reforms Act.       In Hyderabad Vanaspati v. APSEB<\/p>\n
      (supra) the Supreme Court made it clear that the power of<\/p>\n
      the Board to frame terms and conditions of supply is distinct<\/p>\n
      from its power to make regulations. Even in the absence of a<\/p>\n
      individual contract, the terms and conditions of supply<\/p>\n
      notified by the Board will be applicable to the consumer and<\/p>\n
      he will be bound by them. The relevant observations of the<\/p>\n
      Court are extracted below:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                   “20. We have already seen that Section 49
\n                   of the Supply Act empowers the Board to
\n                   prescribe such terms and conditions as it
\n                   thinks fit for supplying electricity to any
\n                   person other than a licensee. The section
\n                   empowers the Board also to frame uniform
\n                   tariffs for such supply. Under Section 79(j)
\n                   the Board could have made regulation<\/p>\n
LPA 2725\/2005                                             Page 24 of 40<\/span>
\n                     therefor but admittedly no regulation has
\n                    so far been made by the Board. The Terms
\n                    and Conditions of Supply were notified in
\n                    BPMs No. 690 dated 17-9-1975 in exercise
\n                    of the powers conferred by Section 49 of
\n                    the Supply Act. They came into effect from
\n                    20-10-1975. They were made applicable to
\n                    all consumers availing supply of electricity
\n                    from the Board. The section in the Act does
\n                    not require the Board to enter into a
\n                    contract with individual consumer. Even in
\n                    the absence of an individual contract, the
\n                    Terms and Conditions of Supply notified by
\n                    the Board will be applicable to the
\n                    consumer and he will be bound by them.
\n                    Probably in order to avoid any possible plea
\n                    by the consumer that he had no knowledge
\n                    of the Terms and Conditions of Supply,
\n                    agreements in writing are entered into with
\n                    each consumer. That will not make the
\n                    terms purely contractual. The Board in
\n                    performance of a statutory duty supplied
\n                    energy on certain specific terms and
\n                    conditions framed in exercise of a statutory
\n                    power.    Undoubtedly     the  terms    and
\n                    conditions are statutory in character and
\n                    they cannot be said to be purely
\n                    contractual.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
   22.          In Punjab SEB v. Bassi Cold Storage,<\/a> 1994 supp(2)<\/p>\n
      SCC 124 the Supreme Court held that the conditions of<\/p>\n
      supply are akin to subordinate legislation.<\/p>\n
   23.          In Bihar SEB v. Parmeshwar Kumar Agarwala,<\/p>\n
      (1996) 4 SCC 686 the Supreme Court held that conditions of<\/p>\n
      supply are part of statutory terms and conditions.                   In<\/p>\n
      paragraph 16 of the judgment, the Court said: (SCC p. 691)<\/p>\n
LPA 2725\/2005                                              Page 25 of 40<\/span>
\n                       “16. Before we advert to the effect
\n                      produced by a combined reading of the
\n                      four clauses, it deserves to be pointed out
\n                      that the terms and conditions have
\n                      sacrosanctity, in that Rule 27 of the Indian
\n                      Electricity Rules, 1956, framed by the
\n                      Central Electricity Board in exercise of
\n                      power under Section 37 of the 1910 Act
\n                      has, read with Annexure VI thereof,
\n                      provided the model conditions of supply
\n                      which are required to be adopted by the
\n                      State Boards. It is on the basis of this
\n                      statutorily prescribed model, with suitable
\n                      variations, that energy had been supplied
\n                      by the Board to the consumers. The model
\n                      conditions can be said to be akin to the
\n                      model Standing Orders prescribed by the
\n                      Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)
\n                      Act, 1947, which, when certified, become
\n                      part of the statutory terms and conditions
\n                      of service between the employer and
\n                      employees      and     they   govern     the
\n                      relationship between the parties, as held in
\n                      Workmen v. Firestone Tyre & Rubber
\n                      Co. of India (P) Ltd. SCC<\/a> at p.832. We
\n                      are inclined to think that similar is the
\n                      effect of terms and conditions, on which a
\n                      State Board supplies energy to the
\n                      consumers.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
   24.          In the light of the decision in Hyderabad Vanaspati<\/p>\n
      Ltd v. APSEB, it is clearly seen that the conditions of supply<\/p>\n
      notified by the Board\/DERC are not regulations and are not<\/p>\n
      required to be placed before the State Legislature under<\/p>\n
      Section 79A of the Supply Act.             Explaining this position,<\/p>\n
      Katju, CJ observed in Madhu Garg’s case:<\/p>\n
                “17. ……. In our opinion, there is no illegality or
\n                unconstitutionality in sub-clause (iv) of Clause 2
\n                of the General Condition of Supply.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
LPA 2725\/2005                                                   Page 26 of 40<\/span><\/p>\n
                 18. It may be mentioned that in Hyderabad
\n                Vanaspati Ltd. v. A.P. State Electricity
\n                Board AIR 1998 SCC 1715, the Supreme Court
\n                took the view that even in the absence of a
\n                contract the terms and conditions of supply will
\n                be governed by the statutory Regulations and
\n                they will applicable to the consumers who will be
\n                bound by them.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                …….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                20. The above Clause 2.1 (iv) of the General
\n                Conditions of Supply has been framed under
\n                Section 21(2) of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 as
\n                well as Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act,
\n                1948, and hence is a piece of delegated
\n                legislation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                21. The learned Single Judge in the impugned
\n                judgment has struck down Clause 2.1 (iv) of the
\n                General Conditions of Supply. With respect to
\n                him, we are of the opinion that there is no
\n                illegality in the said Clause as it comes within the
\n                purview of the Tariff Order framed by the Delhi
\n                Electricity Regulation Commission as well as
\n                under Section 21(2) of the Indian Electricity Act,
\n                1910 and Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act,
\n                1948. We do not agree that the General
\n                Conditions of Supply requires approval of the
\n                State Legislature under the proviso to Section 79
\n                of the Electricity (Supply) Act, as in our opinion
\n                they are not Regulations made under Section 79.
\n                ………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                29.In our opinion, the condition of supply relates
\n                to Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, as
\n                well as Section 11 and 28 of the DERA. The Court
\n                has consistently held that the condition of supply
\n                forms an integral part of the tariff and does not
\n                require approval of State Legislature. In fact,
\n                Clause 2.1 (iv) of the Condition of Supply was
\n                formulated by DESU (DVB) as far back as in
\n                1997-98 and thereafter adopted by DERC in
\n                2001-02.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
LPA 2725\/2005                                                  Page 27 of 40<\/span><\/p>\n
    25.          In MSEB v. MERC (supra) the Division Bench of the<\/p>\n
      Bombay High Court has categorically held that the conditions<\/p>\n
      of supply form an integral part of the tariff. The Court<\/p>\n
      observed:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                    “10…….The terms and conditions for supply
\n                    of electricity also go with the cost of
\n                    electricity. Therefore, while fixing the tariff
\n                    for electricity, the State Commission has to
\n                    necessarily take into consideration terms
\n                    and conditions for supply of electricity in so
\n                    far as they add to the costs of the
\n                    electricity. In determination of the tariff of
\n                    electricity, the terms and conditions of
\n                    supply which form integral part of the
\n                    electricity tariff cannot be bifurcated in the
\n                    manner suggested by Mr. Diwan. Fixing of
\n                    such terms and conditions by MSEB also
\n                    impinges on payment of charges by the
\n                    consumers and are, therefore, subject to
\n                    review by the Commission in view of
\n                    Section 29(1) and (4) of ERC Act. Section
\n                    29(4) of ERC Act provides that the Board
\n                    shall observe methodology and procedure
\n                    specified by the Commission from time to
\n                    time in calculating the expected revenue
\n                    from tariff which it is permitted to recover
\n                    and in determining tariffs to collect those
\n                    revenue. Therefore, the charges as such
\n                    service line charges, transmission charges
\n                    etc. which were charged by MSEB will have
\n                    to be approved by the Commission.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
   26.          The effect of the General Conditions of Supply as<\/p>\n
      contained in Tariff Order dated May 23, 2001 has been<\/p>\n
      considered and discussed by a Division Bench of this Court in<\/p>\n
      Suresh       Jindal   v.   BSES   Rajdhani     Power     Ltd,      LPA<\/p>\n
LPA<\/span><\/a> 2725\/2005                                                 Page 28 of 40
\n       256\/2006, decided on February 20, 2006. In paragraph 51 of<\/p>\n
      which it was observed:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                     “It may be mentioned that the binding and
\n                     statutory nature of the Conditions of Supply
\n                     has been upheld by the Supreme Court in
\n                     Punjab State Electricity v. Bassi Cold
\n                     Storage,<\/a> 1994 suppl (2) SCC 125, Bihar
\n                     State Electricity Board v. Parmeshwar, 1994
\n                     (4) SCC 636 (vide para 16) and
\n                     M\/s.Hyderabad Vanaspati Ltd v. A.P.State
\n                     Electricity Board, AIR 1998 SC 1715 (para\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     22).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      In the same judgment it was also observed in paragraph 57:\n<\/p>\n
                     No doubt, the license was granted by the
\n                     Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission on
\n                     11.3.2004 However, the respondent had
\n                     applied for the license under Rule 10 (2) of
\n                     the Delhi Electricity Reforms (Transfer
\n                     Scheme) rules 2001 within 60 days of
\n                     1.7.2002, which was the notified date of
\n                     transfer. Hence the respondents were duly
\n                     licensed to supply electronic meters in the
\n                     area of their distribution and were vested
\n                     with the powers of the licensee under the
\n                     Indian Electricity Act, 1910, Electricity
\n                     (Supply) Act, 1948, and the rules framed
\n                     there under. The powers under Section 26
\n                     of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and
\n                     Section under Section 49 of the Electricity
\n                     (Supply) Act, 1948 were available with the
\n                     respondent No. 1 as also the power under
\n                     the conditions of supply which were notified
\n                     when Delhi Vidyut Board was in existence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
   27.          In our opinion, the learned Single Judge erred in relying<\/p>\n
      upon       decision   of   the   Gujarat   High   Court     in    Sona<\/p>\n
      Cooperative Housing              Society v. Gujarat Electricity<\/p>\n
      Board (supra). The General Conditions of Supply framed by<\/p>\n
LPA 2725\/2005                                                   Page 29 of 40<\/span>
\n       the DERC are not required to be placed before the State<\/p>\n
      Legislature as they are not regulations made under Section<\/p>\n
      79 of the Supply Act. There is no illegality attached to the<\/p>\n
      conditions of supply framed by the DERC and they are of<\/p>\n
      binding and statutory in nature as held by the Supreme Court<\/p>\n
      in M\/s. Hyderabad Vanaspati v. APSEB (supra).<\/p>\n
      ENTITLEMENT OF DISTRIBUTION COMPANY TO RECOVER<\/p>\n
      DUES FROM NEW OWNER\/CONSUMER<\/p>\n
   28.          The learned single Judge has mainly relied upon the<\/p>\n
      Supreme Court decision in Isha Marbles (supra). We have<\/p>\n
      carefully perused the said decision. In that decision the facts<\/p>\n
      were that the previous owner of the premises in question had<\/p>\n
      mortgaged\/hypothecated the premises to secure a loan from<\/p>\n
      the State Financial Corporation. Since the loan was not<\/p>\n
      repaid, the property was auctioned under Section 29 of the<\/p>\n
      State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. The auction purchaser<\/p>\n
      applied for re-connecting of the electricity supply to the<\/p>\n
      premises which had been disconnected for non-payment of<\/p>\n
      dues by the previous owner. The question arose whether the<\/p>\n
      auction purchaser had to pay the electricity dues of the<\/p>\n
      previous      owner   to   get   restoration   of   the    electricity<\/p>\n
      connection. The Supreme Court observed that the Electricity<\/p>\n
      Board had no charge over the property, and it could not seek<\/p>\n
LPA 2725\/2005                                                   Page 30 of 40<\/span>
\n       enforcement of the contractual liability against a third party<\/p>\n
      (the State Financial Corporation). The Supreme Court further<\/p>\n
      observed that the law, as it stands, is inadequate to enforce<\/p>\n
      the liability of the previous contracting party against the<\/p>\n
      auction purchaser who is a third party. In this regard, the<\/p>\n
      relevant observations in paragraph 63 of the judgment are<\/p>\n
      extracted below:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                    “Electricity is public property. Law, in its
\n                    majesty, benignly protects public property
\n                    and behoves everyone to respect public
\n                    property.     Hence, the courts must be
\n                    zealous in this regard. But, the law, as it
\n                    stands, is inadequate to enforce the liability
\n                    of the previous contracting party against
\n                    the auction-purchaser who is a third party
\n                    and is in no way connected with the
\n                    previous owner\/occupier. It may not be
\n                    correct to state, if we hold as we have done
\n                    above,     it   would     permit    dishonest
\n                    consumers transferring their units from one
\n                    hand to another, from time to time,
\n                    infinitum without the payment of the dues
\n                    to the extent of lakhs and lakhs of rupees
\n                    and each one of them can easily say that
\n                    he is not liable for the liability of the
\n                    predecessor in interest.          No doubt,
\n                    dishonest consumers cannot be allowed to
\n                    play truant with the public property but
\n                    inadequacy of the law can hardly be a
\n                    substitute for overzealousness.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
   29.          In our opinion, the statutory void or inadequacy of law<\/p>\n
      found by the Supreme Court in Isha Marbles has been<\/p>\n
      corrected in the Reforms Act empowering the distribution<\/p>\n
      companies in the NCT of Delhi to recover arrears of<\/p>\n
LPA 2725\/2005                                                Page 31 of 40<\/span>
\n       electricity charges from the new owner\/occupier. Condition<\/p>\n
      2.1(iv) of the General Conditions of Supply, as contained in<\/p>\n
      the Tariff Order, issued by the DERC in exercise of its powers<\/p>\n
      under Section 49 of the Supply Act read with Section 63(2) of<\/p>\n
      the Reform Act provides for recovery of arrears of electricity<\/p>\n
      charges from new occupiers\/owners of the premises.              The<\/p>\n
      said condition has been continued in effect under Section<\/p>\n
      185(2)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 till the same is varied or<\/p>\n
      abrogated.      Thus the decision in Isha Marbles case is<\/p>\n
      clearly distinguishable, as the Supreme Court observed<\/p>\n
      therein that it was due to inadequacy of law, as applicable in<\/p>\n
      the State of Bihar that arrears could not be realised from the<\/p>\n
      subsequent purchaser. However, the law applicable in Delhi<\/p>\n
      is different inasmuch as there is a statutory condition of<\/p>\n
      supply which requires payment of such outstanding dues<\/p>\n
      before resumption\/continuation of the electricity supply.<\/p>\n
   30.          We may also mention that the decision in Isha<\/p>\n
      Marbles case was distinguished by the Kerala High Court in<\/p>\n
      A.Ramachandran v. KSEB, AIR 2001 Kerala 51 and Seena<\/p>\n
      B. Kumar v. Assistant Executive Engineer, AIR<\/a> 2004<\/p>\n
      Kerala 68, in which it was held that under Section 79(j) of the<\/p>\n
      Electricity Supply Act, 1948, the Kerala Electricity Board had<\/p>\n
      framed Regulation 15(d) which provided that all the dues to<\/p>\n
LPA 2725\/2005                                              Page 32 of 40<\/span>
\n       the Board from a consumer shall be charged on the asset of<\/p>\n
      the consumer and hence can be realised as arrears of land<\/p>\n
      revenue. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held<\/p>\n
      that Regulation 15(d) is statutory in nature and it will<\/p>\n
      supersede any contract between the parties. The Division<\/p>\n
      Bench in Madhu Garg after noting the decisions in<\/p>\n
      A.Ramachandran v. Kerala State Electricity Board and<\/p>\n
      Seena B. Kumar v. Assistant            Executive Engineer<\/p>\n
      observed:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                  “13. The learned counsel for respondents
\n                  has sought to distinguish the decision of
\n                  the Supreme Court in Isha Marbles Case
\n                  (supra) on the ground that in that case
\n                  there was no statutory provision which
\n                  empowered the authorities to refuse supply
\n                  of electricity for outstanding dues against
\n                  the previous owner. However, in the
\n                  present case, there is a clear statutory
\n                  provision    embodied     in   the   General
\n                  Condition of Supply to that effect. We agree
\n                  with this submission. In our opinion, the
\n                  general conditions of supply is a piece of
\n                  delegated legislation, and hence has
\n                  statutory force.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  14. In our opinion, there is no distinction
\n                  between the purchaser of a premises who
\n                  was aware that there were outstanding
\n                  electricity dues against the previous
\n                  owner\/tenant, and one who was not aware
\n                  of it. In either case, the dues have to be
\n                  paid by the new owner\/occupant before
\n                  supply can be continued \/ restored. This is
\n                  because      of  the    statutory provision
\n                  contained in Clause 2 (iv) of the General
\n                  Conditions of Supply which has been
\n                  quoted above.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
LPA 2725\/2005                                            Page 33 of 40<\/span><\/p>\n
                     15. In our opinion, whenever a person
\n                    purchases a property, it is his duty to find
\n                    out    whether    there    are    outstanding
\n                    electricity dues in relation to the premises
\n                    or not, and he cannot be allowed to say
\n                    later that he was unaware of the fact that
\n                    there were electricity dues of the previous
\n                    owner \/ tenant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    16.In view of the General Condition of
\n                    Supply, it is the duty of the new
\n                    owner\/occupant to himself make enquiries
\n                    and find out whether there was such dues
\n                    or not. The General conditions of supply are
\n                    statutory in nature (being delegated
\n                    legislation), and hence the question of bona
\n                    fide or mala fide does not arise, and in
\n                    either case the new owner\/occupant of the
\n                    premises has to pay the dues against the
\n                    previous owner \/ tenant, if he wishes the
\n                    electric supply to be continued\/restored.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
   31.          The position is now placed beyond any pale of doubt<\/p>\n
      by    the    recent    judgment   of   the     Supreme     Court         in<\/p>\n
      Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. v. M\/s. DVS<\/p>\n
      Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd<\/a> (supra). In this case the appellant<\/p>\n
      distribution company was one of the successors-in-interest of<\/p>\n
      the UP State Electricity Board. The third respondent was a<\/p>\n
      consumer receiving electricity supply from the Board to its<\/p>\n
      industrial unit at Ghaziabad. It appears that the Board had<\/p>\n
      raised      certain   supplementary    bills   against    the     third<\/p>\n
      respondent towards the difference in tariffs, in respect of<\/p>\n
      which the third respondent filed a civil suit disputing the said<\/p>\n
      claim and obtained an order of injunction restraining the<\/p>\n
      Board from recovering the said supplementary bills amount.<\/p>\n
LPA 2725\/2005                                                  Page 34 of 40<\/span>
\n       Injunction was stayed in appeal preferred by the Board<\/p>\n
      before the Allahabad High Court.        The third respondent<\/p>\n
      closed its unit.   It sub-divided its industrial plot into 129<\/p>\n
      smaller plots of different sizes with the permission of Uttar<\/p>\n
      Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation.        One of<\/p>\n
      those plots was sold by the third respondent to the first<\/p>\n
      respondent. The first respondent applied to the appellant for<\/p>\n
      supply of electricity   which came to be sanctioned subject to<\/p>\n
      the condition that it should pay arrears due by the third<\/p>\n
      respondent, in proportion to the area purchased by it, as a<\/p>\n
      condition precedent for supply of electricity. Accordingly, the<\/p>\n
      first respondent deposited a sum of Rs.8,63,451\/- being the<\/p>\n
      dues of the third respondent pro rata, subject to the<\/p>\n
      condition that in the event of pending challenge to the<\/p>\n
      demand being decided in favour of       third respondent, the<\/p>\n
      appellant shall refund the amount deposited by the first<\/p>\n
      respondent. Later on, on the basis of certain orders passed<\/p>\n
      by the UP State Electricity Regulatory Commission, the first<\/p>\n
      respondent filed a writ petition seeking direction       to the<\/p>\n
      appellant to refund the sum of Rs.8,63,451\/- with interest @<\/p>\n
      12% per annum. The High Court allowed the said writ<\/p>\n
      petition and directed the appellant to refund the said amount<\/p>\n
      with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of payment.<\/p>\n
LPA 2725\/2005                                            Page 35 of 40<\/span>
\n       The question before the Supreme Court was whether the<\/p>\n
      supplier can recover the electricity dues from the purchaser<\/p>\n
      of sub-divided plot.      Answering this question in the<\/p>\n
      affirmative, the Supreme Court held as follows:<\/p>\n
                “10. But the above legal position is not of
\n                any practical help to a purchaser of a
\n                premises. When the purchaser of a
\n                premises      approaches     the    distributor
\n                seeking a fresh electricity connection to its
\n                premises for supply of electricity, the
\n                distributor can stipulate the terms subject
\n                to which it would supply electricity. It can
\n                stipulate as one of the conditions for
\n                supply, that the arrears due in regard to the
\n                supply of electricity made to the premises
\n                when it was in the occupation of the
\n                previous owner\/occupant, should be cleared
\n                before the electricity supply is restored to
\n                the premises or a fresh connection is
\n                provided to the premises. If any statutory
\n                rules govern the conditions relating to
\n                sanction of a connection or supply of
\n                electricity, the distributor can insist upon
\n                fulfilment of the requirements of such rules
\n                and regulations. If the rules are silent, it
\n                can stipulate such terms and conditions as
\n                it deems fit and proper to regulate its
\n                transactions and dealings. So long as such
\n                rules and regulations or the terms and
\n                conditions     are     not    arbitrary    and
\n                unreasonable, courts will not interfere with
\n                them.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                11. A stipulation by the distributor that the
\n                dues in regard to the electricity supplied to
\n                the premises should be cleared before
\n                electricity supply is restored or a new
\n                connection is given to a premises, cannot
\n                be termed as unreasonable or arbitrary. In
\n                the absence of such a stipulation, an
\n                unscrupulous     consumer     may     commit
\n                defaults with impunity, and when the<\/p>\n
LPA 2725\/2005                                            Page 36 of 40<\/span>
\n                 electricity supply is disconnected for non-
\n                payment, may sell away the property and
\n                move on to another property, thereby
\n                making it difficult, if not impossible for the
\n                distributor to recover the dues. Having
\n                regard to the very large number of
\n                consumers of electricity and the frequent
\n                moving or translocating of industrial,
\n                commercial and residential establishments,
\n                provisions similar to Clauses 4.3(g) and (h)
\n                of the Electricity Supply Code are necessary
\n                to safeguard the interests of the distributor.
\n                We do not find anything unreasonable in a
\n                provision enabling the distributor\/supplier
\n                to disconnect electricity supply if dues are
\n                not paid, or where the electricity supply has
\n                already been disconnected for non-
\n                payment, insist upon clearance of arrears
\n                before a fresh electricity connection is
\n                given to the premises. It is obviously the
\n                duty of the purchasers\/occupants of
\n                premises to satisfy themselves that there
\n                are      no     electricity   dues      before
\n                purchasing\/occupying a premises. They can
\n                also incorporate in the deed of sale or
\n                lease, appropriate clauses making the
\n                vendor\/lessor responsible for clearing the
\n                electricity dues up to the date of sale\/lease
\n                and for indemnity in the event they are
\n                made liable. Be that as it may.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                12. In this case, when the first respondent,
\n                who was the purchaser of a sub-divided
\n                plot, wanted a new electricity connection
\n                for its premises, the appellant informed the
\n                first respondent that such connection will
\n                be provided only if the electricity dues are
\n                paid pro rata. They were justified in making
\n                the demand. Therefore, it cannot be said
\n                that the collection of Rs.8,63,451 from the
\n                first respondent was illegal or unauthorised.
\n                It is relevant to note that when the said
\n                amount was demanded and paid, there was
\n                no injunction or stay restraining the
\n                appellant from demanding or receiving the
\n                due<\/p>\n
LPA 2725\/2005                                            Page 37 of 40<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    32.          In the light of the above decision in Paschimanchal<\/p>\n
      Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited the legal position that<\/p>\n
      emerges is that where there are statutory rules governing<\/p>\n
      the conditions relating to sanction of a connection for supply<\/p>\n
      of electricity, the distribution company can insist upon prior<\/p>\n
      fulfilment of the requirement of such rules and regulations<\/p>\n
      before granting a fresh connection. Even if the rules are<\/p>\n
      silent, it can stipulate such terms and conditions as it deems<\/p>\n
      fit and proper to regulate its transaction and dealings.         So<\/p>\n
      long as such rules and regulations or terms and conditions<\/p>\n
      are not arbitrary and unreasonable, the Courts will not<\/p>\n
      interfere with them.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
   33.          In our view, the learned single Judge committed an<\/p>\n
      error in holding that the outstanding dues of earlier<\/p>\n
      owner\/occupier       cannot   be   realised   from    the      new<\/p>\n
      owner\/occupier unless there were mala fides of the old<\/p>\n
      consumer.       The question of mala fides does not arise when<\/p>\n
      there is a statutory provision. We may add that there is no<\/p>\n
      requirement in law for the distribution company to first<\/p>\n
      initiate recovery proceedings by filing a civil suit against the<\/p>\n
      old consumer before disconnecting the electricity supply. In<\/p>\n
      Swastic Industries v. MSEB           (1997) 9 SCC 465 the<\/p>\n
      Supreme Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
LPA 2725\/2005                                              Page 38 of 40<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                     “It would, thus, be clear that the right to
\n                    recover the charges is one part of it and
\n                    right to discontinue supply of electrical
\n                    energy to the consumer who neglects to
\n                    pay charges is another part of it. The right
\n                    to file a suit is a matter of option given to
\n                    the    licensee,    the   Electricity  Board.
\n                    Therefore, the mere fact that there is a
\n                    right given to the Board to file the Suit and
\n                    the limitation has been prescribed to file
\n                    the suit, it does not take away the right
\n                    conferred on the Board under Section 24 to
\n                    make demand for payment of the charges
\n                    and on neglecting to pay the same they
\n                    have the power to discontinue the supply or
\n                    cut off the supply, as the case may be,
\n                    when the consumer neglects to pay the
\n                    charges.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
   34.          In our opinion, the arrears of electricity charges<\/p>\n
      outstanding in respect of electricity supply to the premises<\/p>\n
      cannot be equated with contractual claim of damages, as<\/p>\n
      held by the learned single Judge relying upon the decision of<\/p>\n
      the Supreme Court in Raman Iron Foundry (supra). The<\/p>\n
      said decision is no longer good law in view of the subsequent<\/p>\n
      decision in H.M.Kamaluddin Ansari v. Union of India<\/a><\/p>\n
      (supra).      That apart, as pointed out in Isha Marbles case,<\/p>\n
      electricity is a public property and hence the law in its<\/p>\n
      majesty benignly protects public property and behoves<\/p>\n
      everyone to respect public property. Hence, the courts must<\/p>\n
      adopt the interpretation which furthers the preservation and<\/p>\n
      protection of public property.\n<\/p>\n
\nLPA 2725\/2005                                               Page 39 of 40<\/span>
\n       CONCLUSION<\/p>\n
   35.          For the foregoing reasons, we hold that in terms of<\/p>\n
      clause 2.1(iv) of the General Conditions of Supply forming<\/p>\n
      part of the Tariff Order dated May 23, 2001 if there are<\/p>\n
      electricity dues against the previous owner or occupant of a<\/p>\n
      premises who transfers the premises to a new owner or<\/p>\n
      occupant, the new owner or occupant applying for a fresh<\/p>\n
      electricity connection can be compelled by the Distribution<\/p>\n
      company to pay the arrears of electricity dues of the<\/p>\n
      previous owner or occupant and the distribution company<\/p>\n
      can refuse to supply electricity to the premises on account of<\/p>\n
      such non-payment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
   36.          In the result, the appeal succeeds.   The impugned<\/p>\n
      judgment of the learned single Judge in WP (Civil) No. 2479<\/p>\n
      of 2003 is set aside. The first respondent shall pay the costs<\/p>\n
      of the appellant, quantified at Rs.25,000\/-.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                             CHIEF JUSTICE\n\n\n                                            S.N.AGGARWAL, J\n\n\nJULY 2nd, 2009                            S.MURALIDAHR, J\n\"v\"\n\n\n\nLPA 2725\/2005                                            Page 40 of 40<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt.Ltd. & … on 2 July, 2009 Author: Ajit Prakash Shah * HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA No.2725\/2005 % Date of decision : 2nd July, 2009 BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD …. Appellant Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, Senior Advocate with Mr.Amar Gupta, Mr.Amit […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-242876","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBses Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt.Ltd. & ... on 2 July, 2009 - 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\/bses-rajdhani-power-ltd-vs-saurashtra-color-tones-pvt-ltd-on-2-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt.Ltd. & ... on 2 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-rajdhani-power-ltd-vs-saurashtra-color-tones-pvt-ltd-on-2-july-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-21T01:47:44+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=\"45 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-rajdhani-power-ltd-vs-saurashtra-color-tones-pvt-ltd-on-2-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-rajdhani-power-ltd-vs-saurashtra-color-tones-pvt-ltd-on-2-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt.Ltd. & … on 2 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-21T01:47:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-rajdhani-power-ltd-vs-saurashtra-color-tones-pvt-ltd-on-2-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":4835,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-rajdhani-power-ltd-vs-saurashtra-color-tones-pvt-ltd-on-2-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-rajdhani-power-ltd-vs-saurashtra-color-tones-pvt-ltd-on-2-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-rajdhani-power-ltd-vs-saurashtra-color-tones-pvt-ltd-on-2-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt.Ltd. & ... on 2 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-21T01:47:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-rajdhani-power-ltd-vs-saurashtra-color-tones-pvt-ltd-on-2-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-rajdhani-power-ltd-vs-saurashtra-color-tones-pvt-ltd-on-2-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-rajdhani-power-ltd-vs-saurashtra-color-tones-pvt-ltd-on-2-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt.Ltd. & … on 2 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt.Ltd. & ... on 2 July, 2009 - 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\/bses-rajdhani-power-ltd-vs-saurashtra-color-tones-pvt-ltd-on-2-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt.Ltd. & ... on 2 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-rajdhani-power-ltd-vs-saurashtra-color-tones-pvt-ltd-on-2-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-21T01:47:44+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":"45 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-rajdhani-power-ltd-vs-saurashtra-color-tones-pvt-ltd-on-2-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-rajdhani-power-ltd-vs-saurashtra-color-tones-pvt-ltd-on-2-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt.Ltd. & … on 2 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-21T01:47:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-rajdhani-power-ltd-vs-saurashtra-color-tones-pvt-ltd-on-2-july-2009"},"wordCount":4835,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-rajdhani-power-ltd-vs-saurashtra-color-tones-pvt-ltd-on-2-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-rajdhani-power-ltd-vs-saurashtra-color-tones-pvt-ltd-on-2-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-rajdhani-power-ltd-vs-saurashtra-color-tones-pvt-ltd-on-2-july-2009","name":"Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt.Ltd. & ... on 2 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-21T01:47:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-rajdhani-power-ltd-vs-saurashtra-color-tones-pvt-ltd-on-2-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-rajdhani-power-ltd-vs-saurashtra-color-tones-pvt-ltd-on-2-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-rajdhani-power-ltd-vs-saurashtra-color-tones-pvt-ltd-on-2-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt.Ltd. & … on 2 July, 2009"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/242876","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=242876"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242876\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=242876"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=242876"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=242876"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}