Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Successive Suits

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision. The first suit did not bar the second suit, and the claim for previous owner's dues was unenforceable against the first respondent due to the lack of a specific enabling term in the terms and conditions of electricity supply. The decision in Isha Marbles was deemed applicable, while the subsequent decision in Paramount Polymers was distinguished based on the absence of a similar enabling clause in this case.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are whether the second suit filed by the first respondent was barred by the principles of res judicata and whether the decision in Isha Marbles was applicable to the facts of the case.

Res Judicata - Second Suit:
The first suit by the first respondent sought a permanent injunction, while the second suit aimed for a declaration that the notice threatening disconnection of electricity supply was invalid. The matters directly in issue in both suits were different, as were the reliefs claimed. Therefore, the second suit was not barred by res judicata.

Applicability of Isha Marbles:
The High Court held that the demand for arrears was untenable based on the decision in Isha Marbles. In Isha Marbles, it was established that an auction purchaser seeking a fresh connection cannot be held liable for pre-sale arrears of the previous owner without a specific provision. The subsequent decision in Paramount Polymers introduced a clause allowing recovery of arrears from a purchaser, which was not present in this case. As the appellant did not specify any statutory provision authorizing the claim for previous owner's dues, the claim could not be enforced against the first respondent.

Summary:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision. The first suit was found not to bar the second suit, and the claim for previous owner's dues was deemed unenforceable against the first respondent due to the lack of a specific enabling term in the terms and conditions of electricity supply. The decision in Isha Marbles was held applicable, and the subsequent decision in Paramount Polymers was distinguished based on the absence of a similar enabling clause in this case.

---