Gujarat High Court
Hindustan Earthmovers Pvt Ltd vs Vadodara Municipal Corporation on 9 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/206/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 206 of 2020
With
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 16 of 2021
With
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 17 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
HINDUSTAN EARTHMOVERS PVT LTD
Versus
VADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TATTVAM K PATEL(5455) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 09/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned senior advocate Ms. Trusha K. Patel for the applicant
and learned advocate Mr. Maulik Nanavaty for the respondent.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Maulik Nanavaty
waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/206/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken
up for final hearing. Since all the above referred Civil Revision
Applications arise out of orders passed below exhibit: 10, 15 and 19 in
Special Execution Petition 94 of 2004, they are being disposed of by this
common order.
3. Learned senior advocate Ms.Trusha K. Patel made following
submissions:
3.1 The Applicant i.e. Hindustan Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd. ( for short
"HEPL") was a company involved in manufacturing of Tractor.
Respondent i.e. Vadodara Municipal Corporation (for short "VMC") was
distributing electricity as licensee of Gujarat Electricity Board ( for short
"GEB"). In the month of January, 1984, HEPL was locked out as the
workers went on strike. In that background HEPL made default in paying
electricity charges to the tune of Rs.47,690.83/-. The electric supply was
disconnected. On 11.10.1985, HEPL paid the bill amount after 22 months
of due date. Upon payment, the electric connection was restored.
However, due to default, again the supply was disconnected on
26.11.1985, which was never restored. The possession of premises was
taken away by the State of Gujarat and the same was handed over to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/206/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
Gujarat Tractor Corporation Ltd.
3.2 On 24.12.1987, VMC filed Special Civil Suit No. 720 of 1987 against
HEPL for recovery of Rs.6,47,969.63/- from HEPL on the ground that
amount of Rs.47,690.83/- was paid after 22 months and hence VMC was
entitled to recover the delay payment charges. It also claimed the
minimum charges even after the date of disconnection. An exorbitant
claim of Rs.6,47,969.63/- with 18% interest was made by VMC.
3.3 Since management of HEPL was handed over to Gujarat Tractor
Corporation Ltd., which was given back in the year 1996, the applicant
herein was not aware about pendency of such suit and hence the suit
proceeded ex-parte. The Trial Court passed ex-parte judgment and decree
on 30.08.2003, as prayed for by the VMC. Accordingly, VMC filed
Special Execution Petition 94 of 2004.
3.4 Meanwhile, in the month of May, 1988, the license given to VMC
was revoked by GEB. Hence, GEB also filed Special Civil Suit 376 of
1991 against HEPL for recovery of minimum charges. On 30.08.2003,
the Trial Court passed a judgment and decree allowing the suit and
thereby HEPL was directed to pay Rs.5,58,131.16/- with 12 % interest.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/206/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
First Appeal 1016.2004 was filed by HEPL. On 18.05.2005, under
Compromise Scheme, 2005, HEPL shown its readiness to pay said
amount, if interest was waived. On 15.09.2005, Madhya Gujarat Vij
Company (subsidiary of GEB) agreed to waive delay payment charges
and asked HEPL to withdraw all the suits filed before Civil Court and
High Court. Accordingly, on 26.12.2005, First Appeal 1016.2004 was
withdrawn and Rs.5,58,132/- was paid by HEPL to Madhya Gujarat Vij
Company.
3.5 Despite payment of Rs.5,58,132/- as per settlement, the VMC i.e.
licensee of GEB continued the execution proceedings. Hence, the
applicant herein filed Written Objections vide Exh. 10 on 03.08.2010. On
01.07.2019, HEPL filed application vide Exh. 15 to dismiss the execution
proceedings in view of settlement. On 14.02.2020, an application vide
exh. 19 was filed by HEPL seeking to dismiss execution petition as the
same was based on ex-parte judgment. Relief was also sought to declare
that no amount remained due to be recovered from HEPL. It was also
contended that unless the applications filed by HEPL were decided, the
execution proceedings could not be proceeded further.
3.6 On 01.09.2020, the Trial Court dismissed all the applications. Being
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/206/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
aggrieved by the same, HEPL preferred Civil Revision Application
no.206 of 2020. However, on 18.12.2020, the learned advocate appearing
for the applicant restricted said Revision for prayers made qua Exh. 10
application. She also sought permission to file separate Revisions for
challenging orders passed below exh. 15 and 19. Accordingly, Civil
Revision Applications no. 16 and 17 of 2021 were filed challenging the
orders passed below exh. 15 and 19 in execution proceedings.
3.7 Learned senior advocate Ms. Trusha Patel submitted that admittedly,
the electric connection was never restored after its disconnection that took
place on 26.11.1985. Hence, the demand of minimum charges on part of
VMC and GEB was unsustainable. Still however, with a view to buy
peace, the applicant had entered in to a compromise and had paid
exorbitant amount of Rs.5,58,132/-. Once that amount is accepted and the
dispute was settled, the VMC, which was a licensee of GEB, had no
authority to continue execution proceedings. She also contended that
orders passed below exh. 10, 15 and 19 are unsustainable on various
grounds; however, upon instructions received from her client, she made a
statement that to put an end to a long standing litigation, her client is
ready to pay the principal amount of Rs.6,47,969.63/- as a full and final
settlement of so-called dues. She requested that upon such payment,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/206/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
Execution proceedings itself may be put an end to.
4. Upon perusal of record, this court is of the view that this is a peculiar
case where though the Civil Revision Applications have been filed
against the orders passed below exh. 10,15 and 19 in Special Execution
Petition no. 94 of 2004, a holistic view is required to be taken. This Court
therefore called upon learned advocated Mr. Nanavaty to respond to the
proposal made by the applicant. Learned advocate Mr. Nanavaty fairly
conceded that instead of continuing the litigation for years together, it
would also be in the interest of VMC that the amount as suggested by the
applicant reaches the pocket of VMC.
5. In view of what is stated herein above, this court is of the view that it
would be in the fitness of things to direct the applicant to pay
Rs.6,47,969.63/-, as agreed by it within a period of six weeks from today.
Upon such payment being made, the Special Execution Petition No. 94 of
2004 would stand disposed of. It is clarified that after receipt of such
payment, the VMC or any other successor in interest of it would not
claim any amount from the applicant company towards electric dues for
the period for which the suits as referred to herein earlier were filed.
Parties are directed to act accordingly.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/206/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
6. All the Civil Revision Applications are disposed of in view of above
referred direction. Rule is made absolute to aforesaid extent. No order as
to cost.
Sd/-
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
URIL RANA
