Supreme Court of India
WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD versus M/S FAKIR CHAND RICE MILLS AND ORS.
- Decided
- 27 February 1996
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Citations
- Official
- [1996] 2 S.C.R. 1142 · 1996 INSC 321
- Also cited as
- (1996) 8 SCC 647
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.
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
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. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Mr. A.D. Sikri, Learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of .the respondents. We have heard the counsel for the parties.
p. 1142, margin G
Leave granted.
p. 1142, margin G
As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the respondents, it is a discretionary order. The discretion would also be properly exercised by the
p. 1142, margin G
W.B.S. ELECfRICITY BD. v. FAKIR CHAND RICE MILLS 1143 courts below when dealing with the points in controversy. A demand of Rs. 28, 68, 264.06 was made on the allegation that there were pilferages in the meter reading of the electrical energy supplied to the respondents. In a suit by the respondents for supply of energy to the respondents, the trial Court directed payment of Rs. 2,60,000 and odd. On appeal, it was confirmed. When it was carried in revision, the High Court in C.O. No 2714 1995 modified the order and directed the respondents to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,60,000. Thus this appeal by special leave.
p. 1143
A demand notice for Rs. 28 lakhs and odd having been issued, the ' question is : whether the Court was right in directing ultimately payment of Rs. 5,60,000 ? The High Court does not appear to have addressed itself to the questions. It simply repeated that it was a discretionary order passed by the courts below directing payment of Rs. 2.60 lakhs and at the same time directed the respondents to deposit Rs. 5,60,000 without adjudicating the matter. Normally, in matters of money claim, at least half of the amount would be directed to be deposited. In the situation obtaining in this case, when the appellant is obligated to supply electrical energy to the respondents an equal obligation has to be cast on the respondents to pay the amount subject to determination of controversy in the suit. Under these circumstances, the respondents are directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs within a period of two months from today. If the amount of Rs. 5,60,000 has already been deposited, the same may be given credit for the payment and the balance be paid within the aforesaid period.
p. 1143, margin B
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal disposed of.
p. 1143, margin E