wp2336.12 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2336 OF 2012
Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Company Limited
(MSEDCL) - through its
Superintending Engineer, Nagpur
Urban Circle, Prakash Bhavan,
Link Road, Sadar, Nagpur 440 001. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. M/s. Associated Biscuits Company
Limited through its Director B-14,
MIDC, Hingna Industrial Estate,
Nagpur.
2. Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum,
Nagpur Urban Zone, Maharashtra State
Electricity Distribution Company Limited,
Link Road, Sadar, Nagpur 440 001. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri S.V. Purohit, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri S.S. Dewani, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
OCTOBER 13, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
The matter was considered in the first half and thereafter to understand the exact implications flowing from observations in para 4 in the impugned order dated 06.03.2012, the matter was adjourned to second half. ::: Uploaded on - 25/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2017 23:52:22 ::: wp2336.12 2
2. In the second half, after hearing the respective counsel,, I find that dispute whether cheque was presented by the respondent on 22.09.2011 or 23.09.2011, is not very relevant. The cheque was put into clearing by bankers of the petitioner on Saturday i.e. 22.09.2011 itself. Thus, on 26.09.2011 when the amount was debited from the account of the respondent, the credit could have been given to the petitioner. The facts, however, show that credit has been given on next day i.e. on 27.09.2011. In the process, payment made by the respondent gets delayed by one day and dis-entitles it to the advantage of prompt payment discount.
3. The respective counsel have advanced their contentions. According to Shri Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner, as per M.E.R.C. orders and only to see that funds become available for actual use, scheme aims at securing the actual cash and then offers discount. Here, actual cash has come on 27.09.2011 and hence the discount cannot be given.
4. The working procedure and clearing house system ::: Uploaded on - 25/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2017 23:52:22 ::: wp2336.12 3 in vogue, therefore, needs to be properly understood. Shri Purohit, learned counsel, submits that there are 2 - 3 more such matters pending and thereafter the petitioner has started insisting for R.T.G.S. payments. In this matter, after the respondent succeeded before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (C.G.R.F.), this Court has granted stay to the petitioner and it is operating till date. In the meanwhile, the respondent has "under protest" paid the balance amount.
5. In this situation, I find it appropriate to get all disputed questions resolved through proper consideration once for all. The officers of the petitioners' bank viz. H.D.F.C. Bank and Bank of respondent No. 1. viz., Axis Bank can be summoned by C.G.R.F. and with their assistance the exact process can be understood. The correctness or otherwise of findings recorded in para 4 thereafter can be decided. Hence, only to facilitate that exercise and without prejudice to the contentions of the parties in the matter, impugned order dated 06.03.2012 is quashed and set aside. The matter is restored to the file of C.G.R.F., Nagpur Urban Zone, Nagpur. The parties ::: Uploaded on - 25/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2017 23:52:22 ::: wp2336.12 4 are directed to appear before that forum on 20.11.2017. The forum shall thereafter give parties necessary opportunity to explain the system of clearing house and credit deposit through their respective Bankers. The forum thereafter shall pass fresh orders as per law.
6. Accordingly, writ petition is partly allowed and disposed of. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE ****** *GS.
::: Uploaded on - 25/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2017 23:52:22 :::