1969 (1) TMI 83 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court affirms jurisdiction over electricity supply case, deems electricity as 'goods.' Plaintiff awarded claimed amount.

Associated Power Co. Ltd. Versus Ram Taran Roy (R.T. Roy)

Associated Power Co. Ltd. Versus Ram Taran Roy (R.T. Roy) - AIR 1970 Cal 75, 73 CWN 701 Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to try the suit.2. Whether electricity is considered 'goods' within the meaning of Clause 4(iv) of the First Schedule of the City Civil Court Act, 1953.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Try the Suit:The primary issue raised was whether the High Court has jurisdiction to try the suit, considering it involved the supply of electricity and not traditional 'goods.' The defendant argued that the City Civil Court should have jurisdiction as the claim was for Rs. 7460.06, which is below the Rs. 10,000 limit specified in Section 5(ii) of the City Civil Court Act. The plaintiff countered that under Clause 4(iv) of the First Schedule of the City Civil Court Act, which deals with transactions exceeding Rs. 5000 related to the buying or selling of goods, the High Court retains jurisdiction.The Court examined the language and intent of the City Civil Court Act, emphasizing that the Act aimed to relieve the High Court's Original Side of pressure by allocating certain cases to the City Civil Court. However, for commercial transactions exceeding Rs. 5000, the High Court retained jurisdiction. The Court concluded that the suit fell within this category, thereby affirming its jurisdiction.2. Whether Electricity is Considered 'Goods':The crux of the legal debate centered on whether electricity falls within the definition of 'goods' as used in Clause 4(iv) of the First Schedule of the City Civil Court Act. The defendant argued that electricity, being intangible and merely a form of energy, should not be classified as 'goods.' The plaintiff, however, contended that electricity should be considered 'goods' based on the broad definitions provided in the Constitution and the Indian Sale of Goods Act.The Court analyzed various arguments and authorities:- Constitutional and Statutory Definitions: Article 366(12) of the Constitution defines 'goods' broadly to include all materials, commodities, and articles. Section 2(7) of the Indian Sale of Goods Act defines 'goods' as every kind of movable property except actionable claims and money. The Court found these definitions sufficiently broad to encompass electricity.- Judicial Precedents: The Court reviewed several cases, including the Privy Council's decision in Babulal Choukhani v. King Emperor, which recognized the theft of electricity, and the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Naini Tal Hotel v. Naini Tal Municipality, which held that electric energy is movable property and thus 'goods.'- Commentaries and Doubts: The Court noted the doubts expressed in Pollock and Mulla's commentary on the Indian Sale of Goods Act and the hesitant observations in English cases like County of Durham Electrical Power Distribution Co. v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue. However, these doubts were not decisive, and no authoritative ruling had excluded electricity from being considered 'goods.'The Court concluded that electricity should be considered 'goods' within the meaning of Clause 4(iv) of the First Schedule of the City Civil Court Act. The agreement for the supply of electricity was deemed a mercantile document, falling under the jurisdiction of the High Court.Conclusion:The High Court held that it has jurisdiction to try the suit and that electricity is considered 'goods' within the meaning of the relevant statutory provisions. Consequently, the Court decreed the amount claimed with interim interest, interest on judgment at 6% per annum, and costs.