U.P. State Electricity Board v. Banaras Electric Light & Power Co. Ltd., (SC) BS13055
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- A.P. Misra and D.P. Mohapatra, JJ.

Civil Appeal Nos. 499-500 of 1983. D/d. 17.8.2001.

U.P. State Electricity Board - Appellant

Versus

Banaras Electric Light & Power Co. Ltd. - Respondent

For the Appearing Parties :- Mr. Ranjit Kumar and Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Pradeep Misra, Mr. K.L. Mehta, Ms. Meera Mathur, Mr. Dhruv Mehta and Ms. Shobha, Advocates.

Companies Act, 1956, Sections 468 and 518(1)(b) - Indian Electricity (U.P. Amendment and Validation) Act, 1975, Sections 6 and 7(A) - Taking over of the company - Rights and powers of the Liquidator to receive un-recovered dues of the company - Whether the Board is liable to pay to the liquidator of the company in liquidation the amount collected by it between toward arrears of electricity supplied prior to take over of the Undertaking by the Board - Held; Yes - The Board is not entitled to adjustment/set off - When the field is covered by statute the exercise has to be done strictly in accordance with that statutory provisions - It is not open for the Board to make any deduction by way of adjustment or set off from the amount to be paid to the company without a statutory mandate in that regard - The company is entitled to receive from the Board the amounts realised by the Board from consumers towards arrears for the supply made prior to the date of vesting.

[Paras 2, 13 and 14]

JUDGMENT

D.P. Mohapatra, J. - In these appeals filed by special leave, the U.P. State Electricity Board (for short 'the Board'), a statutory body constituted under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 assails the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court vide its Judgement dated 26.8.1982 in the Appeal from Original Order No. 229 of 1980 dismissing the appeal filed by the Board and confirming the judgment passed by the single Judge.

2. The core question that arises for determination in these cases is whether the Board is liable to pay to the liquidators of the company (in liquidation) respondent herein the sum of Rs. 68,29,636.87 together with interest being the amount collected by the Board between the 4th/5th February, 1975 till 30th April, 1979 towards arrears of electricity charges for the electricity supplied to consumers during periods prior to the take over of the Undertaking by the Board, and all collections made by the Board subsequently on that account.

3. The factual matrix of the case, which is not in dispute, may be stated thus :

4. Banaras Electric Light & Power Co. Ltd. (hereinafter described as 'the Company') was the holder of the license dated 6th February, 1925 for generation, supply and distribution of electric energy in the city of Banaras under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short 'the Act'). On 1st February, 1974 a notice under Section 6(1) of the Act was served upon the company notifying the intention of the Board to purchase the undertaking of the company. The possession of the Undertaking was taken over at midnight between 5th and 6th February, 1975. The undertaking of the company thereupon vested in the Board. On the date of the take over of the Undertaking there were certain uncollected dues for the electricity supplied by the company to its consumers up to the date of vesting which were thereafter collected by the Board. Up to 30th April, 1979 a total sum of Rs. 68,29,636.87 had been collected. In the meantime the company had gone into voluntary liquidation and joint liquidators had been appointed. On the application filed by the liquidators on 30th January, 1980 under Sections 468 and 518(1)(b) and (4) of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking an order against the Board to pay to the liquidators of the company the aforementioned sum together with interest thereon and all further collections made by the Board from 1st May, 1979 till date. The gist of the case of the company was that the aforementioned amount was the dues of the company from its consumers for the electricity supplied before the date of vesting, which the Board collected from the consumers after vesting of the undertaking. The company contended that the amount was collected by the Board as agent of the company and the Board held the amount as a trustee. Therefore, the Board was required in fact and in law to make over the amount collected by it and any further sum which it may collect from the consumers towards such arrear dues of the company to the liquidators.

5. Contesting the claim of the company the Board took the stand that it was entitled to retain and appropriate any amount collected by it after vesting of the undertaking since the book-debts of the company which were part of the undertaking vested in the Board. The further case pleaded by the Board was that under the provisions of the Act it was entitled to adjust the said amount towards dues of the company towards the cost of the electricity supplied and the security deposits of the consumers which the company had failed to make over to the Board at the time of vesting.

6. The learned single Judge of the High Court on consideration of the case of the parties and on interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Indian Electricity Act and also the Indian Electricity (Uttar Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, 1975 (U.P. Act No. 16 of 1975) particularly Sections 6 and 7(A) thereof held that the book-debts of the company were not a part of the undertaking which vested in the Board and, therefore, the Board having admittedly realised the arrears of charges which were due from the consumers to the company (in liquidation) prior to the date of taking over had no right to retain the same and the court in exercise of the jurisdiction vested under Section 468 read with Section 518(1)(b) and (4) of the Companies Act could adjudicate the matter and direct that the amount collected by the Board as trustee or agent of the Company (in liquidation) should be paid to the liquidators. The learned single Judge rejected the plea of the Board for adjustment/set off of the amount against dues of the company (in liquidation) to the Board. The operative portion of the order/judgment reads as hereunder :

7. The Board assailed the said order/judgment in appeal which, as noted earlier, was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the judgment which is under challenge in the present appeals. From the discussions in the judgment it is clear that the Division Bench took note of the contentions raised by the counsel appearing for the parties, particularly, the question whether the book-debts of the company were included in the expression 'undertaking' and as such vested in the Board. Interpreting, the provisions of Section 7 and 7(A) of the Act as substituted by the Indian Electricity (U.P. Amendment and Validation) Act, 1975 the Division Bench held that there was no specific provision for book-debts of the company as a part of the undertaking and the licensee did not have to account for the book-debts or unpaid bills on the date of service of notice or at any point of time thereafter. Taking note of the provisions of the Section 7 which provides that the rights, powers, authorities, dues and obligations of the licensee under its license shall stand transferred to the purchaser and such purchaser shall be deemed to be the licensee and the provisions in sub-sections (4) and (5) of the Section 7(A) which empower the purchaser to deduct certain sums from the purchased money to be paid to the company, the Division Bench observed that Section 7(A)(5) lays down the method of adjustment of liabilities of the licensee against the compensation money and it does not contain any rule for calculation of compensation of the purchase money to be paid to the licensee. The Division bench recorded its finding : "why should the licensee get credit for the unpaid bills of the consumers and his liability on account of security deposits be reduced unless the outstanding amount of the unpaid bills are regarded as property of the licensee ?". The Division Bench was of the view that no other construction will make any sense. The Division Beanch took the view that if the appellant's argument is to be accepted, the statute must be taken to have given the licensee the credit for money which do not belong to the licensee; this construction will lead to absurdity and should be avoided. The Division Bench was of the opinion that the unpaid bills of the consumers are not covered by the expression 'undertaking' and under the Act the outstanding amounts payable on the bills belong to the licensee. On these observations and findings the Division Bench came to the conclusion that in the facts of the case the decision of the learned trial Judge directing the Board to make the payment collected so far together with interest to the liquidators is correct. The Division bench dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge and directed the Board to carry out the direction given by the learned trial Judge within a period of eight weeks from the date.

8. Before considering the case on merit it will be convenient to notice some relevant statutory provisions.

9. Section 6 of the Act which deals with 'purchase of undertakings' enumerates the procedure to be followed when the State Electricity Board or the State Government or any local authority constituted for an area intends to purchase an Undertaking. The provisions of the said section so far as material for the purpose of the present case are quoted hereunder :

10. Section 7 of the Act which makes the provisions regarding vesting of the undertaking in the purchaser reads as follows.

11. By the U.P. Act No. 16 of 1975 the following changes were made in Section 7 of the principal Act :

12. Section 7A contains the provisions regarding determination of the purchase price. The said section as substituted by the U.P. Act 16 of 1975, so far as material for the purpose of the case, is quoted hereunder :

13. On a close reading of the provisions noted above it is clear that no provision is made in the Act requiring the licensee to deliver the book debts of the company to the Board on vesting of the Undertaking in the latter, nor is there any provision in the statute empowering the Board to deduct the amount of unrealised dues of the company from its consumers towards the electricity supplied to them prior to the date of vesting from the purchase money to be paid by the Board to the company. Further, there is no provision in the Act which enables the Board to adjust the said amount towards security deposits or any other dues. The plea of the adjustment/set off is untenable. The field being covered by statute the exercise has to be done strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions. It is not open for the Board to make any deduction by way of the adjustment or set off from the amount to be paid to the company without a statutory mandate in that regard. It follows therefore the company is entitled to receive from the Board the amounts realised by the latter from consumers towards charges of electricity supplied by the company to them prior to the date of the vesting. The Division Bench has also referred to the correspondence between the Board and Company indicating that the Board was conscious of its liability to hand over a sum of Rs. 68,29,636.87 to the company.

14. The High Court was right in allowing the petition filed by the liquidators of the company (in liquidation) and directing the Board to pay the amount realised by it with interest to the liquidators.

15. In the result, the appeals being devoid of merit, are dismissed. The hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 10,000/-.

Appeals dismissed.