Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Mr. S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in C.A. No. 5551/1997 with reference to various clauses of the agreement submitted that learned Single Judge was justified in his view. Whenever intention was that levies are to be made in respect of irregular supply position, specific provision was made in the agreement. When the Board itself had understood that way as evident from the past practice, it was not open to take an opposite view.

6. In the clause relating to maximum demand charges, the stress is on the expression 'per month' and that itself is indicative of the fact that the parties to the agreement intended that there should be uninterrupted supply and the charges were to suffer abatement in case of interruption/part supply. When a contract is for continuous supply then there is an inbuilt intention that there should be abatement of the charges when continuous supply is not there. The interpretation by learned Single Judge of various clauses cannot be said to be unreasonable and the Division Bench ought not to have interfered with the same. Though there is no specific provision for varying the rate, the same has to be read into the agreement, and both in law and equity was to be granted. It is not that the appellants were seeking total waiver; what was really called for related to remission for interrupted/non-supply. Strong reliance was placed on several decisions to buttress their arguments. Specific reference was made to Orissa State Electricity Board and Anr. vs. IPI Steel Ltd. and Ors. 1995 (4) SCC 320 ), M/s. Northern India Iron and Steel Co. vs. State of Haryana and Anr. 1976 (2) SCC 877 ), Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and Ors. vs. M/s. Green Rubber Industries and Ors. 1990 (1) SCC 731 ) and Raymond Ltd. and Anr. vs. M.P. Electricity Board and Ors. 2001 (1) SCC 534 ). Mr. Pratik Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in C.A. Nos. 5550-53/97 adopted the arguments of Mr. Ganesh; but added that the maximum demand charge is relatable to electrical energy supply. When for a major portion of a month there is no supply, question of levy at the stipulated rate does not arise. Mr. Parijat Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in C.A. No. 5554/97 adopted the arguments of Mr. Ganesh. Mr. H.K. Puri, learned counsel for the respondent-Board submitted that the minimum guaranteed charges and the maximum demand charges stand on different footings and logic applicable to one cannot be applied to the other. In case of minimum guaranteed charges, the basis is consumption; if power could not be supplied up to the agreed quantum, except in certain circumstances, the rebate when specifically provided for could be granted. But where the foundation is different, as in the case of maximum demand charges the rate agreed is applied for the purpose of computation of the charges. Therefore, the Division Bench was justified in reversing views of learned Single Judge.