Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Defendant company in its written statement submitted that on inspection conducted on 11.07.2008 the meter No.2703522 was found totally damaged and burnt at site. From the burning pattern it was observed that the meter was deliberately burnt in order to destroy the material evidence inside it. Meter was sent to the laboratory. Connected load was found to be 24.755 KW against sanctioned load of 11 KW. Videography was done at the site. Plaintiff was asked to witness the testing of the meter at ­3­ ERDA Lab. In its report dated 26.07.2008, ERDA Lab gave finding that as per burning pattern meter was burnt deliberately. A show cause notice was served upon the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs did not attend the personal hearing scheduled for 02.09.2008. On examination, defendant company found that the average consumption of electricity from 28.07.2007 to 28.06.2008 was 1960 upm. It was 50.78% of the assessed consumption. CMRI data speaking order dated 26.02.2009 was passed. A case of dishonest abstraction of energy was established. On this basis, theft bill was raised.

6. Perusal of lab report clearly shows that the burning pattern showed that the meter was deliberately burnt. Laboratory is an independent agency. Nothing on record suggests any connivance between the defendant ­4­ company and the lab. Plaintiffs obviously have deliberately burnt the meter so as to wipe out evidence relating to the consumption of electricity. Plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands. Relief of injunction is a discretionary relief. A person coming to the court with unclean hands cannot claim the same. Application for injunction against the defendant company from disconnecting the electricity supply is devoid of merits. The same is hence dismissed.