IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.85 OF 1994 Maharashtra State Electricity Board) a body corporate having its head ) office at Hong Kong Bank Building, ) Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, ) Bombay-400 023. )..Appellants Versus M/s.K.T.Steel Industries Private ) Limited, a company registered under) the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and) having their registered office at ) Broach Street, Dana Bunder, ) Bombay-400 009. )..Respondents ---- Mr.Kirit Mody & Kiran Gavelhi i/by Little & Co. for the appellants. ---- Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Date : 6.5.2008. Judgment :- 1. This is a First Appeal filed by the MSEB impugning a judgment and decree dated 29.1.1992 passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay in S.C Suit No.5007 of 1988. The operative part of the judgment passed by the City Civil Court was in the following terms :- "1. Suit is decreed in terms of prayers (a) that it is declared that the provisional bill for May 1986 for Rs.31,270.76 Ps. raised by the Defendants upon the plaintiffs in respect of Consumer : 2 : No.01252-0900970-1 and Electric Meter No.1203010854, is against the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 hence a nullity and not binding upon the plaintiffs, and "2. Suit is also decreed in terms of prayer (b) that the Defendants, their servants, agents, officers, inspectors, representatives and contractors are permanently restrained by an order and injunction by this Hon’ble Court from disconnecting the electric Meter No.1203010854 and consumer No.02152-900970-1 installed at the plaintiff’s factory at Ambernath, District Thane as long as the plaintiffs pay the lawful demands of the Defendants in respect of actual electricity consumed by the plaintiffs." 2. The record indicates that the plaintiff’s challenged a provisional bill issued by the appellants for the month of May-1988 (wrongly mentioned as May-1986 in the operative portion of the order). The basis of the suit was that the factory of the plaintiff was closed in the said month. The earlier meter reading showed 554.30 units whereas the current meter reading also showed : 3 : 554.30 units. The bill itself indicated that the difference was zero. It was contended by the plaintiff that in such circumstances, the bill was null and void. It appears that the bill in question was for the amount of Rs.46,270/-. The plaintiff deducted amount of Rs.15,000/- which was charged in lieu of "demand charge". In fact, he had paid this demand charge amount under protest. His claim was therefore, restricted to Rs.31,270/-. 3. Counsel appearing for the appellant states that at the highest plaintiff was entitled to a reduction of amount of Rs.8316/- in view of energy charge and FCA charge Rs.1293.60 which was dependant upon and related to the energy charge. His contention was that out of the total bill, amount of Rs.20337.75/- was shown as arrears. On this amount of Rs.523.78 was billed as interest under "total other charges". That further electricity duty was payable as required under the law irrespective of the fact that there was no energy charge. 4. The respondents have chosen to remain absent though served. In my view, contentions raised by the appellant are correct. Appeal is therefore, partly allowed in respect of all charges except energy charge and FCA charge. The impugned judgment and decree is therefore, modified and it is ordered and decreed as under :- : 4 : O R D E R (1) It is declared that the provisional bill for May-1988 raised by the defendant upon the plaintiff in respect of consumer no.01252-0900970-1 is a nullity in part in so far as it relates to the energy charge for the amount of Rs.8316.00 and FCA charge amounting to Rs.1293.60 (totalling Rs.9609.60) ; (2) Suit is also decreed in terms of prayer clause-(b) and the defendants, their servants, agents, officers, inspectors, representatives and contractors are permanently restrained by an order of injunction from dis-connecting the electric meter no.1203010854 installed at the plaintiff’s factory at Ambernath as long as the lawful demands are paid. (3) The decree of the trial Court is modified to the above extent. (4) There shall be no order as to costs. (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J)