Karnataka High Court: In the instant appeal, Mangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (MESCOM) challenged the interim order of the Single Judge Bench whereby the Court directed MESCOM not to take any coercive action against the respondent pursuant to the electricity dues recovery and disconnection notices impugned on the condition that the respondent deposits Rs.20,00,000/- before the Court. While considering the challenge, the Division Bench of N.V. Anjaria, CJ*., and K.V. Aravind, J., pointed out that the impugned order challenged in the appeal in an interim order, as the very kind and nature of the order, it cannot be said that the order pronounced anything final or that it has crystallized the rights of any of the parties finally. Hence the appeal was dismissed.
The appellant had sent demand notices dated 28-12-2023 and 21-02-2024 to the respondent seeking to recover electricity dues of Rs. 1,47,47,245 for the period between 01-12-2008 and 01-03-2024. Furthermore, the appellant sent a disconnection notice dated 5-6-2024 to the respondent.
The respondent challenged the afore-stated notices before the Single Judge Bench of Karnataka High Court. The Court via its impugned order dated 8-8-2024, passed interim order pending final consideration of the petition.
Counsel for the appellant stated that the respondent’s petition before the Single Judge was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 127 of The Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, when the respondent could not maintain the petition, the question of granting the interim order would not arise.
Per contra, the respondent defended the impugned order and submitted that the condition of depositing of Rs 20,00,000 was complied with, and the said amount was already deposited with the Court’s Registry
Perusing the dispute, the Division Bench declined to express anything on the merits of the case and entertain the petition inasmuch as the order brought in appeal was an interim order.
The Court therefore dismissed the appeal stating that the parties may work out their rights and remedies in the parent proceedings of the writ petition. The Court directed that the Single Judge while deciding the petition, shall permit both the sides to raise all the contentions which may be available to them in law.
Furthermore, Rs.20,00,000/- which is deposited shall be invested by the Registry in a cumulative fixed deposit initially for a period of one year renewable in any nationalized bank which shall be subject to the final order which may passed by the Court.
[Mangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited v. Ultratech Cement Limited, WRIT APPEAL NO. 1628 OF 2024, decided on 4-4-2025]
*Judgment by Justice N.V Anjaria, Chief Justice
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Appellant: Advocate General Mr. K. Shashi Kiran Shetty with Advocate Mr. Shahbaaz Husain
Respondent: Senior Advocate Mr. Dhyan Chinnappa with Advocate Mr. V.G. Prashanth
