Mah. State Electricity ... vs M/S Associated Biscuits Company ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 8219 Bom

   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.

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

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

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.