Statutory arbitration limits in electricity disputes leave civil court jurisdiction intact where the claim falls outside the enactment.

A dispute over damages claimed for disconnection of electricity supply was outside the arbitration scheme under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Section 19 of the 1910 Act confines arbitration to compensation for damage caused in the course of statutory works, and Section 52 of that Act and Section 76(2) of the 1948 Act apply only where the statute itself directs arbitration. In the absence of a valid statutory basis or consensual arbitration agreement, the Arbitration Act, 1940 does not expand jurisdiction, and the civil court is not barred from entertaining the suit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dispute regarding damages claimed for disconnection of electricity supply was arbitrable under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 or the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and whether the civil court was barred from entertaining the suit.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 permits arbitration only in matters which are expressly directed by the Act to be determined by arbitration. Section 19 of that Act governs compensation for damage caused in the course of works undertaken under the Act, and the arbitration contemplated thereunder is confined to disputes arising from such statutory works-related damage. A claim for damages arising from disconnection of supply does not fall within that category. Likewise, Section 52 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 76(2) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 apply only where the dispute is one which the statute itself directs to arbitration. In the absence of a consensual arbitration agreement, and where the statutory provisions do not cover the dispute, the Arbitration Act, 1940 does not enlarge jurisdiction in a manner inconsistent with the special enactments. The question whether there is a valid statutory basis for arbitration is for the court, not the arbitrator, and where such basis is absent the civil court retains jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The dispute was not arbitrable under the special statutes and the civil suit was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The decree below was unsustainable because the dispute could not be referred to arbitration under the governing enactments, and the suit for declaration and injunction was rightly decreed.

Ratio Decidendi: Arbitration can be compelled only where the statute or a valid agreement expressly makes the dispute arbitrable, and a civil court is not ousted where the claimed dispute falls outside the statutory reference to arbitration.

---