http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5461 of 2005

PETITIONER: M/s. Amit Products (India) Ltd.                          

RESPONDENT: Chief Engineer (O & M) Circle & Anr.                     

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/09/2005

BENCH: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN & B.P. SINGH

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 25222/2004)

K.G. Balakrishnan, J.

       Leave granted.         Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned  Counsel for the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (in short  "MSEB"). By the impugned Judgment, the Writ Petition filed by the  appellant company was rejected by the High Court.  The appellant  company, M/s. Amit Products (India) Ltd., is a company incorporated  in India and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act,  1956.  The appellant company obtained Provisional Registration  Certificate as a small scale industry from the Director of Companies  of Government of Maharashtra.  The Director of the Appellant  Company Shri Shridhar Natekar filed an application for getting  electricity connection.  This was rejected by the respondent MSEB.   MSEB insisted on clearance of all arrears of electricity charges  payable by M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Limited which according  to the MSEB was the previous consumer.  The appellant company  contended that they are not liable to pay the electricity charges  payable by M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and the appellant  company herein is a distinct and separate company which had  nothing to do with M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

       It may be noted that previously appellant company filed a Writ  Petition namely, W.P. 2090/2002.  In the Writ Petition, the appellant  company requested for power supply to its factory contending that it  is a separate company situated at a separate portion of the property  comprised in the same Survey No. and the insistence of the MSEB to  pay the arrears of electricity charges to be payable by M/s. Amar Amit  Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and the refusal to give supply was arbitrary and  violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.  The matter  was elaborately considered by the High Court of Bombay and by  judgment dated 18.12.21003, it was held that the appellant company  was seeking connection in respect of the same premises, by the  same consumer, under the guise of separate corporate body and it  was found that the appellant company was the very same corporate  entity which committed default in paying the electricity charges.  It  was held  that the appellant company was not an independent entity  having no concern with the previous defaulter.

       The present appellant company now contends that the previous  judgment was passed at a time when the Directors of the appellant  Company were Amit Dembada, Anita Dembada and Thakur Das  Tejnani and it is now pointed out that the present Directors are Abhay  Abad, Sridhar Natekar and Thakurdas Tejnani and the learned  counsel for the appellant company further contended that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

shareholders of the appellant company have also been changed and  the details of the present shareholders are mentioned to be seven in  number and they are not belonging to the family to Dembada.  It is  submitted that the previous defaulter M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys  Pvt. Ltd. was a family concern of Dembada and they have nothing to  do with the present appellant company and the whole corporate entity  has changed and the respondent MSEB is bound to give connection  without insisting for the payment of electricity charges to be payable  by M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd.  

       The appellant company also contended that it is in possession  of only 40 Ares of land out of the total property comprising Gut No.   953; Its total area bearing 2 hectares 82 Ares.  The appellant  company has also pointed out that M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt.  Ltd. was having factory on the north-eastern corner of the property  whereas the appellant company is on the north-western corner side  of the property.   

       The learned Counsel for the first respondent contended that the  very same company had applied for connection and the Writ Petition  filed by the appellant company previously was dismissed and the  same was challenged before this Court and this Court dismissed SLP  and there was further Review and Curative Petition and all of them  were dismissed by this Court, and therefore, the appellant company  was not justified in filing a fresh appeal.

       We have carefully considered the rival contentions of both the  parties.  We are unable to accept the contention of the appellant  company that by changing the members of the Board of Directors of  the Company or by changing the shareholding pattern, the appellant  Company had undergone any change.  The very same company  wanted the electricity connection without making any payment  towards the electricity charges payable by the previous consumer  and the matter was dealt with in detail by the High Court and it was  held that the appellant company is none other than the sister concern  of M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and was representing the  same consumer who had committed the default and it was held that  Condition 23(b) of the Conditions of Miscellaneous Charges for  supply of electricity energy would apply to the appellant Company.   We do not think that by change of Directors or by change of pattern of  the shareholding, the appellant company is really a different entity  than M/s. Amit Products (India) Ltd. who filed the previous Writ  Petition No. 2090/2002.  The reasons given in the previous Judgment  which were confirmed by this Court would apply with all force against  the present appellant company and the High Court has rightly  dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant Company.

       We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and  the appeal is dismissed.