TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Auction-purchaser liable for previous electricity dues under Electricity Act</h1> <h3>TELANGANA STATE SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. Versus M/s. SRIGDHAA BEVERAGES</h3> TELANGANA STATE SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. Versus M/s. SRIGDHAA BEVERAGES - 2020 AIR 2676, 2020 (6) SCC 404, 2020 (6) JT 1, 2020 ... Issues Involved:1. Liability of auction-purchaser for previous electricity dues.2. Interpretation of auction notice clauses.3. Applicability of statutory dues under the Electricity Act.4. Judicial precedents on liability for electricity dues.5. Distinction between fresh connection and reconnection.Detailed Analysis:1. Liability of Auction-Purchaser for Previous Electricity Dues:The primary issue was whether the auction-purchaser (respondent) was liable for the previous electricity dues of the last owner. The auction was conducted under the SARFAESI Act by Syndicate Bank. The auction notice explicitly mentioned that the property was sold on an 'AS IS WHERE IS, WHATEVER THERE IS AND WITHOUT RECOURSE BASIS,' indicating that the purchaser should be aware of and assume any existing liabilities, including electricity dues.2. Interpretation of Auction Notice Clauses:The auction notice contained specific clauses that outlined the terms of the sale. Clause 24 stated that the property was sold 'in all respects and subject to statutory dues if any,' and Clause 26 absolved the Authorized Officer of any liability for charges, liens, encumbrances, property tax dues, electricity dues, etc. The sale deed also mentioned that the sale was 'free from all encumbrances known to the Secured Creditor,' but indemnity was provided only for defects in title, not for other liabilities like electricity dues.3. Applicability of Statutory Dues under the Electricity Act:The electricity dues were considered statutory dues under the Electricity Act, 2003, and the General Terms & Conditions of Supply. Clauses 5.9.6 and 8.4 of these conditions stipulated that a new connection could be denied if there were outstanding dues from the previous owner. The Supreme Court emphasized that statutory dues could not be waived and were not purely contractual in nature.4. Judicial Precedents on Liability for Electricity Dues:The respondent relied on previous judgments such as Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board and Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited v. Gopal Agarwal, where subsequent purchasers were not held liable for previous owners' electricity dues. However, the Supreme Court distinguished these cases, noting that the auction notice in the present case explicitly mentioned the liability for electricity dues.5. Distinction Between Fresh Connection and Reconnection:The Court referred to cases like Special Officer, Commerce, NESCO v. Raghunath Paper Mills Private Limited, which distinguished between fresh connections and reconnections. In the present case, Clause 8.4 of the General Terms & Conditions of Supply covered both scenarios, indicating that the purchaser was liable for previous dues regardless of whether a fresh connection or reconnection was sought.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the auction-purchaser was liable for the previous electricity dues. The clauses in the auction notice and the statutory nature of the dues under the Electricity Act supported this conclusion. The Court set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeal, affirming that the appellant was within its rights to demand the arrears from the respondent. The appeal was allowed, and each party was directed to bear its own costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
