Js Furnishing Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr
2012 Latest Caselaw 6722 Del

$~5&6

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                                        Date of Decision: November 23, 2012


+                              LPA 851/2011

       JS FURNISHING PVT LTD                            ..... Appellant
            Represented by : Mr.Rakesh Tiku, Senior Advocate instructed
            by Mr.Aman Walesha, Advocate and Mr.Himanshu Raman,
            Advocate.

                      versus

       UNION OF INDIA & ANR                           ..... Respondents
           Represented by : Mr.Jatan Singh, Advocate and
           Mr.Tushar Singh, Advocate.


AND

                               LPA 509/2012

       UOI AND ORS                                    ..... Appellant
            Represented by : Mr.Jatan Singh, Advocate and Mr.Tushar
            Singh, Advocate.

                      versus

       M/S JS FURNISHING CO P LTD                    ..... Respondent
            Represented by : Mr.Rakesh Tiku, Senior Advocate instructed
            by Mr.Aman Walesha, Advocate and Mr.Himanshu Raman,
            Advocate.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

LPAs No.851/2011 & 509/2012                                  Page 1 of 4
 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. By a common decision WP(C) No.3637/1990 and WP(C) No.16784/2004 have been disposed of by a learned Single Judge.

2. WP(C) No.3637/1990 has been allowed following the law declared by a learned Single Judge in the decision reported as 112 (2004) DLT 690 Jor Bagh Association vs. UOI. But WP(C) No.16784/2004 has been dismissed holding that unless charges levied by L&DO were not paid, in view of the law declared in the decisions reported as 129 (2006) DLT 213 Madhav Garg vs. NDPL and 161 (2009) DLT 28 BSES Rajdhan Power Ltd. vs. Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt. Ltd., the question of the demand being barred by limitation would not arise.

3. Whereas Union of India is aggrieved by the impugned decision insofar WP(C) No.3637/1990 is allowed, the writ petitioner is aggrieved insofar WP(C) No.16784/2004 has been dismissed.

4. As regards reliance placed by the learned Single Judge in the decisions reported as 129 (2006) DLT 213 Madhav Garg vs. NDPL and 161 (2009) DLT 28 BSES Rajdhan Power Ltd. vs. Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt. Ltd., suffice would it be to state that the learned Single Judge has failed to note the difference between statutory demands and non-statutory demands. Whereas demands which are statutory do not become barred by limitation; non-statutory demands attract the Law of Limitation. With respect to demands towards electricity dues, as held by the Supreme Court in the decisions reported as 2006 (13) SCC 101 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam Ltd. vs. Paramount Polymers Pvt. Ltd. and 2010 (9) SCC 145 Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hanuman Rice Mills & Ors., one has to apply the law carefully. Only if the electricity demand is statutory, be it under a statute or on a condition of supply which is statutory in character

alone then can it be said that demands towards electricity dues are not barred by limitation for purposes of recovery.

5. While cross fertilizing principles of law in different domains, Judges have to be careful and ought to note the precise legal dispute which was adjudicated upon and it would be unfair to the litigating citizen if cross fertilization is blurred.

6. Demands on account of misuse or unauthorized constructions, unless shown to be statutory in character would attract the law declared by the Supreme Court with respect to the recovery as per the decisions noted by us herein above.

7. As regards the decision of the learned Single Judge in Jor Bagh's case (supra), the same stand overruled by a Division Bench in a decision pronounced February 28, 2012 UOI & Anr. vs. Jor Bagh Association (Regd) & Ors., but with a clarification as set forth in para 80(F) of the opinion of the Division Bench.

8. The impugned decision has also referred to a decision by a Division Bench of this Court reported as 2005 (I) AD Delhi 634 UOI vs. Vinay Kumar Aggarwal, which decision has been overruled by a Full Bench of this Court in the decision pronounced on July 10, 2012.

9. Under the circumstances, both appeals are allowed. Impugned order dated August 09, 2011 is set aside. WP(C) No.3637/1990 and WP(C) No.16784/2004 are restored for fresh adjudication by the learned Single Judge in light of our observations made herein above and the decision of the Division Bench in LPA No.415/2005 decided on February 28, 2012 as also the decision of the Full Bench in LPA No.1125/2007 decided on July 10, 2012.

10. The two writ petitions would be listed for directions on January 08, 2013.

11. It is hoped and expected that the learned Single Judge would decide the two writ petitions as expeditiously as possible.

12. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE NOVEMBER 23, 2012 dk