M/S. K.Y.S. Manufacturers And ... vs Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3948 Jhar

                                          1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                        W. P. (C) No. 3887 of 2020

              M/s. K.Y.S. Manufacturers and Exporters (P) Ltd.
                                                     ...      ...    Petitioner
                                    Versus
              Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and Others
                                               ...        ...      Respondents

                                  With
                        W. P. (C) No. 1837 of 2008

         Jharkhand State Electricity Board         ...     ...      Petitioner
                               Versus
         M/s. K.Y.S. Manufacturers and Exporters (P) Ltd.
                                             ...       ...       Respondent
                               ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Devashish Bharukha Advocate Mr. S. L. Agarwal, Advocate (In W.P. (C) No. 3887/2020) : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate (In W.P. (C) No. 1837/2008) For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General Mr. Chandan Tiwari, Advocate

---

13/13.10.2023

1. Learned counsels for the parties are present.

2. Learned counsels for the parties submit that they shall jointly file their convenience compilation referring to the materials available on record, relevant provisions of law, and the judgments on which they seek to rely.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an amount of Rs. 7, 9,27,967/- has been shown in the bill which has no basis at all. Even from the counter-affidavit, it is not clear as to on what account this bill has been raised.

4. It is submitted that an amount of Rs. 2,58,42,428/-. has been shown as 'kept in abeyance' which is refundable to the petitioner with interest as it has not been refunded since 2011. It is submitted that another amount refundable to the petitioner has been shown in the bill which is Rs. 3,21,29,513/- but has been kept in abeyance.

5. The learned counsel further submits that the unit of the petitioner has an induction furnace that has gone out of production since 2021on account of disconnection of electricity and the petitioner is willing to start the unit but is not able to start due to disconnection of electricity.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that a supplementary affidavit is required to be filed clearly stating as to under which head the amount of Rs. 7,49,27,967/- has been shown in the bill on page 120 of the writ petition and to bring on record if there is any previous bill has been raised in connection with the amount. The learned counsel for the respondents is directed to clarify their position with regard to the aforesaid amounts shown as 'kept in abeyance' in the supplementary affidavit to be filed.

7. The supplementary affidavit be filed by 9th November 2023.

8. Post these matters on 24.11.2023.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul