Products (India) Ltd. Vs. Chief Engineer (O & M) Circle & Anr  Insc
465 (2 September 2005)
Balakrishnan & B.P. Singh
out of SLP(Civil) No. 25222/2004) K.G. Balakrishnan, J.
the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the Maharashtra
State Electricity Board (in short "MSEB"). By the impugned Judgment,
the Writ Petition filed by the appellant company was rejected by the High
Court. The appellant company, M/s. Amit Products (India) Ltd., is a company incorporated in
India and registered under the provisions
of the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant company obtained Provisional
Registration Certificate as a small scale industry from the Director of
Companies of Government of Maharashtra. The Director of the Appellant Company Shri
Shridhar Natekar filed an application for getting electricity connection. This
was rejected by the respondent MSEB.
insisted on clearance of all arrears of electricity charges payable by M/s. Amar
Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Limited which according to the MSEB was the previous
consumer. The appellant company contended that they are not liable to pay the
electricity charges payable by M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and the
appellant company herein is a distinct and separate company which had nothing
to do with M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
be noted that previously appellant company filed a Writ Petition namely, W.P.
2090/2002. In the Writ Petition, the appellant company requested for power supply
to its factory contending that it is a separate company situated at a separate
portion of the property comprised in the same Survey No. and the insistence of
the MSEB to pay the arrears of electricity charges to be payable by M/s. Amar Amit
Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and the refusal to give supply was arbitrary and violative
of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The matter was elaborately
considered by the High Court of Bombay and by judgment dated 18.12.21003, it
was held that the appellant company was seeking connection in respect of the
same premises, by the same consumer, under the guise of separate corporate body
and it was found that the appellant company was the very same corporate entity
which committed default in paying the electricity charges. It was held that the
appellant company was not an independent entity having no concern with the
present appellant company now contends that the previous judgment was passed at
a time when the Directors of the appellant Company were Amit Dembada, Anita Dembada
and Thakur Das Tejnani and it is now pointed out that the present Directors are
Abhay Abad, Sridhar Natekar and Thakurdas Tejnani and the learned counsel for
the appellant company further contended that the shareholders of the appellant
company have also been changed and the details of the present shareholders are
mentioned to be seven in number and they are not belonging to the family to Dembada.
It is submitted that the previous defaulter M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt.
Ltd. was a family concern of Dembada and they have nothing to do with the
present appellant company and the whole corporate entity has changed and the
respondent MSEB is bound to give connection without insisting for the payment
of electricity charges to be payable by M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
appellant company also contended that it is in possession of only 40 Ares of
land out of the total property comprising Gut No. 953; Its total area bearing 2
hectares 82 Ares. The appellant company has also pointed out that M/s. Amar Amit
Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd. was having factory on the north-eastern corner of the
property whereas the appellant company is on the north-western corner side of
learned Counsel for the first respondent contended that the very same company
had applied for connection and the Writ Petition filed by the appellant company
previously was dismissed and the same was challenged before this Court and this
Court dismissed SLP and there was further Review and Curative Petition and all
of them were dismissed by this Court, and therefore, the appellant company was
not justified in filing a fresh appeal.
have carefully considered the rival contentions of both the parties. We are
unable to accept the contention of the appellant company that by changing the
members of the Board of Directors of the Company or by changing the
shareholding pattern, the appellant Company had undergone any change. The very
same company wanted the electricity connection without making any payment
towards the electricity charges payable by the previous consumer and the matter
was dealt with in detail by the High Court and it was held that the appellant
company is none other than the sister concern of M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys
Pvt. Ltd. and was representing the same consumer who had committed the default
and it was held that Condition 23(b) of the Conditions of Miscellaneous Charges
for supply of electricity energy would apply to the appellant Company.
not think that by change of Directors or by change of pattern of the
shareholding, the appellant company is really a different entity than M/s. Amit
Products (India) Ltd. who filed the previous Writ
Petition No. 2090/2002. The reasons given in the previous Judgment which were
confirmed by this Court would apply with all force against the present
appellant company and the High Court has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition
filed by the appellant Company.
find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and the appeal is