Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (2.10 seconds)Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. on 2 July, 2009
3. Further, a three judges bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt. Ltd.
AIR 2010 Delhi 14 has held that electricity arrears are recoverable from
subsequent occupant and in case of non payment, new connection may be
refused.
Union Of India vs Ibrahim Uddin & Anr on 17 July, 2012
Apparently, the
plaintiff has not led any specific evidence to justify this denial of
suggestion. In such circumstances, I am unable to hold that plaintiff was
disputing the existence of connection or any outstanding amount. It is
well settled law that what has not been pleaded cannot be looked into and
Sushma Devi Vs. NDPL & Ors. 4
even if any evidence is recorded on not pleaded case, the same has to be
ignored. If any authority is required, I would refer to Union of India vs
Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148 the ratio whereof has recently been
applied by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in New Delhi Municipal
Council vs M/S Prominent Hotels Limited on 11 September, 2015.
New Delhi Municipal Council vs M/S Prominent Hotels Limited on 11 September, 2015
Apparently, the
plaintiff has not led any specific evidence to justify this denial of
suggestion. In such circumstances, I am unable to hold that plaintiff was
disputing the existence of connection or any outstanding amount. It is
well settled law that what has not been pleaded cannot be looked into and
Sushma Devi Vs. NDPL & Ors. 4
even if any evidence is recorded on not pleaded case, the same has to be
ignored. If any authority is required, I would refer to Union of India vs
Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148 the ratio whereof has recently been
applied by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in New Delhi Municipal
Council vs M/S Prominent Hotels Limited on 11 September, 2015.
Sarjiwan Singh vs Delhi Vidyut Board on 16 March, 2004
9. Issue No.-2 is taken up for consideration. Prayer for mandatory
injunction appears to be for grant of commercial meter whereas prayer
for permanent injunction appears to be for not disconnecting the meter
installed in the name of Dr. Bahdav. I have already shown that such type
of prayer related to injunction is not maintainable due to the bar created
by Section-145 of Electricity Act, 2003. Additionally, so far as prayer
related to connection of Dr. Bahdav is concerned, the entire plaint is
silent in respect of any cause of action therefor. Moreover, as held in
Sarjiwan Singh Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board, MANU/DE/0246/2004, a suit
for injunction is not maintainable where the plaintiff ought to have
prayed for declaring the bill as void. In the present case, the Plaintiff
though says that bill has been illegally raised but is not asking for any
declaration in respect of this particular bill and is only seeking to restrain
Sushma Devi Vs. NDPL & Ors. 6
the defendant from disconnecting the meter. This is not permissible. For
all these reasons, it is held that both the injunctions are not maintainable.
As such, Issue No.-2 is decided against the plaintiff.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Sh. B.L. Kantroo vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. on 25 September, 2008
At the outset, I would like to note that providing or not providing a
commercial electricity meter and disconnecting or not disconnecting any
electricity meter can be done by a electricity company in pursuance of
powers available under the Electricity Act, 2003. A division bench of
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in B.L. Kantroo vs BSES Rajdhani Power
Ltd. MANU/DE/1411/2008 has held as under:
The Electricity Act, 2003
1