The Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited & Ors. vs Bapuna Alcobrew Private Limited & Anr.

Held: Limitation period of two years prescribed for recovery of dues u/s.56 of the 2003 Act would apply to liabilities arising under the 2003 Act, and not prior to the enforcement thereof – Thus, Division Bench erred in holding that the liability incurred by the first respondent prior to the enforcement of the 2003 Act would still be barred by the provisions of s.56(2) thereof – Furthermore, orders having become final, leave no room for the first respondent to escape its statutory liability by arguing bar of limitation, when the statute itself did not prescribe such bar – Challenge to the first show cause notice having failed the principle of issue estoppel operated as a bar for the first respondent to raise a challenge to the second show cause notice, which had been issued for precisely the same due amount – Also, point even if wrongly decided binds the party against whom it is decided and the same point cannot be urged in a subsequent suit or proceeding at the same level – Issue of liability accruing to the first respondent for non-payment of minimum guarantee charges had been decided previously and such decision, not being subjected to any appeal, had attained finality in the eyes of law estopping the first respondent from reagitating the issue – Second writ petition at the instance of the first respondent was not maintainable and, ought not to have been entertained at all – However, since the appellants accepted the order of the Single Judge and issued fresh demand for reduced amount and which has since been recovered by encashing the bank guarantee, no order made for changing the position flowing from the said order – Thus, on conjoint reading of all the orders, the liability of the first respondent to pay the minimum guarantee charges is clear and such orders having attained finality, bound the first respondent; and no submission by the first respondent, either on delay in raising the demand or meritbased review of the action of the appellants, in the second writ petition was open to persuade the High Court to hold in favour first respondent – Thus, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court being unsustainable in law and set aside – Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. [Paras 13, 24-40]

Electricity Act, 1910 – s.24 – Discontinuance of supply to consumer neglecting to pay charge – Limitation period: Held: Although s.24 prescribes no period of limitation, it does allow the licensee to discontinue supply of energy upon a consumer neglecting to pay charges that are demanded by raising a bill, irrespective of the fact that a suit for recovery of unpaid charges would be barred if not instituted within three years of the liability accruing – There appears to be no limitation as regards the period within which notice u/s.24(1) has to be issued, evincing the intention of the licensee to disconnect supply for non-payment of claimed dues – However, if in case, despite the consumer not paying the charges demanded and the notice thereunder is not issued within a reasonable period or at any time within which a suit for recovery could be instituted, whether the right of the licensee to claim the unpaid charges would lapse will have to be decided by the court before whom the lis is brought upon consideration of the defence that is raised and the explanation for the delay – It must depend on the facts of each particular case whether the demand by reason of mere delay should be interdicted or not – Furthermore, s.17 of the 1963 Act is meant to save suits from being dismissed as time-barred, which could not be filed due to bona fide mistakes or errors – If a suitor alleges that the suit could not be instituted by him within the prescribed period of limitation because of some mistake, which came to be discovered beyond the period prescribed for institution of a suit, it is open to such suitor to claim exemption from limitation in terms of Ord. VII r. 6 CPC and such exemption can be granted in an appropriate case – However, if a suitor alleges to have discovered a mistake later but it is proved on evidence being led that exercise of reasonable diligence could have resulted in the mistake being discovered on an earlier date, limitation would begin to count from that earlier date; and, in case, the count from the said earlier date takes the date of institution of the suit beyond the prescribed period of limitation, the bar of limitation would get attracted – Mistake is, thus, not a circumstance which can be used as a shield to save negligence in all cases – Absence of due diligence or lack of bona fides would not clothe suitor to take undue advantage of beneficent provision like s.17 – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.17 – Electricity Act, 2003 – s.56(2). [Paras 16, 17, 19, 20]