Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI versus AJANTA IRON & STEEL CO. (PVT.) LTD.

Decided
28 February 1990
Judges listed
L.M. SHARMA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1990] 1 S.C.R. 733 · 1990 INSC 64
Also cited as
  • AIR 1990 SC 882 (4 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

SHARMA, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of a suit filed by the respondent-company against the appellant, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, for a mandatory injunction to restore the supply of electricity discontinued during the pendency.ofthe suit. Initially the suit was filed for a prohibitory injunction from disconnecting the electric connection. The plaint was amended following stoppage of the supply of energy.

p. 734, margin B

2

According to the plaintiff's case, the suit had to be filed as the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking was threatening disconnection without disclosing any reason. Subsequently, some officers of the Undertaking made an inspection of the meters and alleged theft oJ electricity after tampering with the seals affixed on the meters. A First Information Report was lodged with the police.

p. 734, margin C

3

Admittedly no notice was served by the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking on the plaintiff before severing the electric connection. The learned trial court, however, dismissed the suit and the plaintiff appealed. The First Additional District Judge, Delhi, who heard the appeal decreed the suit on the sole ground of nonservice of notice as required under condition no. 36 in regard to supply of electricity by the appellant. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's second appeal at the admission stage by a reasoned judgment.

p. 734, margin E

4

The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in view of the conduct of the plaintiff in stealing electricity, the Court should in its discretion refuse to issue a direction for restoration of the electric supply. We are afraid, it is not possible to agree with the appellant for more reasons than one. The plaintiff is seriously denying the allegation of theft and it is not possible to assume the accusation as correct without a full-fledged trial on this issue. The case of Jagarnath SinKh v. B.S. Ramaswamy, [1966] 1SCR885; relied upon on behalf of the appellant is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as the consumer in that case was convicted under the Indian Penal Code, and the conviction was being maintained in appeal. Besides, the service of notice is a prerequisite for disconnection, and the appellant can not be allowed to go back upon its words and refuse the consumer the benefit of notice as contemplated by the agreement. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking will seriously suffer if this view is upheld. We do not understand as to what is the difficulty in the way of the appellant to serve a notice on the consumer before discontinuing the supply. It has to be appreciated that the licensee Undertaking is performing a public duty and is governed by a special statute and the Iaw also contemplates service of a notice before disconnection of supply of electricity. The courts below have made it clear that they have not examined the case on merits. The question whether, the allegations of theft are true or not bas to be examined and decided in an appropriate proceeding, and the appellant will not, therefore, be prejudiced by the present judgment in its claim. In the result, the appeal is dismissed but, without costs. P.S.S. Appeal dismissed.

pp. 734–735, margin F