(Civil Appeal No. 1815 of 2020) (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (c) No. 19292/2018)
Section 24 of Electricity Act, 1910 and section 56 of Electricity Act.
The creditor has failed to pay the loan; Syndicate Bank brought the property to auction the respondent was the successful auction-purchaser. The property was sold in “AS IS WHERE IS, WHAT IS THERE IS AND WITHOUT ANY RECOURSE BASIS” which means with respect and subjects’ enquiry should be made by the bidder before submitting the bid. The issue was regarding the previous electricity bill dues of the last owner. In the terms and condition of the Auction they had made every right clear. A writ petition was filed for the same but that petition was dismissed.
Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board & Anr. (1995) 2 SCC 648; the Court elucidated the position in the context of Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910 to emphasise the Section 2(c) of the Electricity Act which defines the term consumer. According to this the Consumer means the person who is supplied with the energy and the consumer has to pay the electricity.
Dakshin Hyderabad Bijli Nigam Ltd. v. Paramount Polymers (P) Ltd. (2006) 13 SCC 101; it was observed that where there was a similarity as in the present case of dealing with electricity dues. It was observed that in such a case if transferee desires to enjoy the service connection, he shall pay the outstanding dues, if any, to the supplier of the electricity and a reconnection or a new connection shall not be given to any premises where there are arrears on account of dues to the supplier unless they are so declared in advance.
Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hanuman Rice Mills, Dhanauri & Ors.: It was given that scenario where the pendency of electricity dues was not mentioned in the terms and conditions of sale, and it was held in those facts that the dues could not be mulled on to the subsequent transferee.
The court followed the same line as the facts of the case were very similar to the Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd. & Ors. v. Gopal Aggarwal & Ors (2018) 12 SCC 644.
The appeal was allowed. It was observed that the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside while opening the appellant would be well within its right to demand the arrears due to the last owner from the respondent-purchase. Cost will be on the parties to bear their own cost.
Section 68 of Evidence Act, Section 59, 63, 68, 74 of Indian Succession Act; Order XLI Rule 23, 23A, 24, 25 of CPC.
Order VII Rule 2 of CPC, Article 113and 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, Article 120 of the Limitation Act of 1908.