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

AHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY CO. LTD. versus GUJARAT INNS. PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

Decided
16 March 2004
Judges listed
R.C. LAHOTI, BRIJESH KUMAR, ARUN KUMAR (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2004] 3 S.C.R. 23 · 2004 INSC 172
Also cited as
  • (2004) 3 SCC 587 (19 citing judgments)
  • AIR 2004 SC 2171 (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

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

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.

The respondents in the two appeals before us are auction purchasers of urban properties in the sales held in one case under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 and in the other case by the Official Liquidator in winding up proceedings under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The previous owners of the properties in both the cases had run into some arrears qua the appellant in respect of power supply made to the premises which have been the subject matter of sales. It appears that the respondents sought for a fresh connections for supply of power to the respective premises. The appellant insisted on the previous arrears being cleared, It also appears that some arrears were paid by the respondents Nos. I and 2 in Civil Appeal No. 1691 of 1999. However, the supply of electricity has been resumed. The dispute is whether the respondents should be held liable to pay the arrears which were outstanding against the previous owners.

pp. 23–24, margin G

A three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in lsha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board and Anr., [1995] 2 SCC 648 supports the respondents and has been followed by the High Court. Mr. Harish N. Salve, the learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the decision in lsha Marbles' case (supra) does not lay down the correct law and needs reconsideration. Jn particular, the learned senior counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to paragraphs 49 and 57 of the decision wherein this Cuurt ha~ held that not only in the case of fresh connection but even if it is a case of reconnc;ction the buyer of the property is under no obligation to pay the arrears incurred by the previous owners. The learned counsel submitted that at least a distinction should be drawn_ between the case of reconnection and the case the former case even the buyer would not be the arrears were cleared.

p. 24, margin C

two cases are the cases of fresh respondents (auction purchasers) connections and they have no objection in as fresh connections given on the dates on which the supply of electricity was restored to the premises. We are clearly of the opinion that m case ofa fresh connection though the premises are the same, the auction purchasers cannot be held liable to clear the arrears incurred by the previous owners in respect of power .supply to the premises in the absence of there being a specific statutory provision in that regard. Thougl\ we find some merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant calling for reconsideration of the wide propositions of law laid down in /sha Marbles' case (supra), we think the present one is not a case for such exercise. We leave the plea open for consideration in an appropriate case. The appeals are dismissed. R.P. Appeals dismissed.

p. 24, margin E