SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Amit Products (India) Limited
Vs.
Chief Engineer, (O and M) Circle,
C.A.No.5461 of 2005
(K.G.Balakrishnan and B.P.Singh JJ.)
02.09.2005
K.G.Balakrishnan, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the
Maharashtra State Electricity Board (in short "MSEB"). By the
impugned judgment, the writ petition filed by the appellant-company was
rejected by the High Court. The appellant-company, M/s. Amit Products (India)
Ltd., is a company incorporated in India and registered under the provisions of
the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant-company obtained provisional
registration certificate as a small scale industry from the Director of
Industries of Government of Maharashtra. The director of the appellant-company
Shri Shridhar Natekar filed an application for getting electricity connection.
This was rejected by the respondent MSEB. MSEB insisted on clearance of all
arrears of electricity charges payable by M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt.
Limited which according to the MSEB was the previous consumer. The
appellant-company contended that they are not liable to pay the electricity
charges payable by M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and the appellant-company
herein is a distinct and separate company which had nothing to do with M/s.
Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
3. It may be noted that previously the appellant-company filed a writ petition
namely, W. P. No. 2090 of 2002. In the writ petition, the appellant-company
requested for power supply to its factory contending that it is a separate
company situated at a separate portion of the property comprised in the same
Survey No. and the insistence of the MSEB to pay the arrears of electricity
charges to be payable by M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and the refusal
to give supply was arbitrary and violative of articles 14 and 19(l)(g) of the
Constitution. The matter was elaborately considered by the High Court of Bombay
and by judgment dated December 18, 2003, it was held that the appellant-company
was seeking connection in respect of the same premises, by the same consumer,
under the guise of separate corporate body and it was found that the
appellant-company was the very same corporate entity which committed default in
paying the electricity charges. It was held that the appellant-company was not
an independent entity having no concern with the previous defaulter.
4. The present appellant-company now contends that the previous judgment was
passed at a time when the directors of the appellant-company were Amit Dembada,
Anita Dembada and Thakur Das Tejnani and it is now pointed out that the present
directors are Abhay Abad, Sridhar Natekar and Thakurdas Tejnani and learned
counsel for the appellant-company further contended that the shareholders of
the appellant-company have also been changed and the details of the present
shareholders are mentioned to be seven in number and they are not belonging to
the family of Dembada. It is submitted that the previous defaulter M/s. Amar
Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd. was a family concern of Dembada and they have
nothing to do with the present appellant-company and the whole corporate entity
has changed and the respondent MSEB is bound to give connection without insisting
for the payment of electricity charges to be payable by M/s. Amar Amit Jalna
Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
5. The appellant-company also contended that it is in possession of only 40
acres of land out of the total property comprising Gut No. 953 ; Its total area
bearing 2 hectares 82 acres. The appellant-company has also pointed out that
M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd. was having factory on the north-eastern
corner of the property whereas the appellant-company is on the north-western
comer side of the property.
6. Learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the very same
company had applied for connection and the writ petition filed by the
appellant-company previously was dismissed and the same was challenged before
this court and this court dismissed SLP and there was further review and
curative petition and all of them were dismissed by this court, and therefore,
the appellant-company was not justified in filing a fresh appeal.
7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of both the parties. We
are unable to accept the contention of the appellant-company that by changing
the members of the board of directors of the company or by changing the
shareholding pattern, the appellant-company had undergone any change. The very
same company wanted the electricity connection without making any payment
towards the electricity charges payable by the previous consumer and the matter
was dealt with in detail by the High Court and it was held that the
appellant-company is none other than the sister concern of M/s. Amar Amit Jalna
Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and was representing the same consumer who had committed the
default and it was held that condition 23(b) of the conditions of miscellaneous
charges for supply of electricity energy would apply to the appellant-company. We
do not think that by change of directors or by change of pattern of the
shareholding, the appellant-company is really a different entity than M/s. Amit
Products (India) Ltd. who filed the previous Writ Petition No. 2090 of 2002.
The reasons given in the previous judgment which were confirmed by this court
would apply with all force against the present appellant-company and the High
Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-company.
8. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and the appeal is
dismissed.