Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a demand of Rs.28,68,264.06 made by the appellant electricity board against the respondent rice mills, alleging pilferages in the meter reading of electrical energy supplied to the respondents. The respondents filed a suit seeking supply of energy. The trial court directed the respondents to pay Rs.2,60,000 and odd as an interim measure. On appeal, that order was confirmed. The High Court, in C.O. No.2714 of 1995, modified the order and directed the respondents to deposit Rs.5,50,000/- (later referred to as Rs.5,60,000/- in the judgment). The appellant electricity board then filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court had not addressed the questions in controversy and had failed to adjudicate the matter. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had simply repeated that it was a discretionary order without determining the points in dispute. The Court noted that normally, in matters of money claim, at least half of the amount would be directed to be deposited. Since the appellant was obligated to supply electrical energy to the respondents, an equal obligation had to be cast on the respondents to pay the amount subject to determination of the controversy in the suit. Accordingly, the Supreme Court directed the respondents to deposit Rs.12 lakhs within two months from the date of the order, and if Rs.5,60,000 had already been deposited, credit was to be given for that amount. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Orders - Direction for Deposit in Money Claim - General Legal Principles (no specific statute cited) - Dispute involved a demand of Rs.28,68,264.06 against the respondent for alleged pilferage in electricity meter reading; trial court directed deposit of Rs.2,60,000, confirmed in appeal, and High Court modified to Rs.5,50,000 in revision - Supreme Court held that in money claims, at least half the amount should ordinarily be directed to be deposited; since the appellant was obligated to supply electricity, an equal obligation was cast on the respondent to pay the amount subject to determination of the controversy in suit - Held that respondents must deposit Rs.12 lakhs within two months, with credit for Rs.5,60,000 if already deposited (Paras not provided).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was right in directing payment of Rs.5,60,000 without adjudicating the matter when the demand was Rs.28,68,264.06; and what should be the appropriate interim deposit pending suit
Final Decision
Appeal disposed of; respondents directed to deposit Rs.12 lakhs within two months from date of order, with credit for Rs.5,60,000 if already deposited; no costs.
Law Points
- In money claims
- at least half of the amount would normally be directed to be deposited
- when a party is obligated to supply electrical energy
- an equal obligation is cast on the other party to pay the amount subject to determination of the controversy in suit
- courts must exercise discretion properly and adjudicate points in controversy
