Karnataka High Court
M/S Mahindra And Mahindra ... vs The Managing Director And Ors on 4 March, 2022
Bench: Anant Ramanath Hegde
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI
BENCH
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 225590 OF 2020 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S MAHINDRA @ MAHINDRA
FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,
VIJAYAPURA BRANCH, 2ND FLOOR,
'PAREKH BUILDING',
LINGAD ROAD, VIJAYAPURA - 586 103.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
THE MANAGER/AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
SRI SHASHIDHAR S/O SHIVASHARANAPPA DUGOND,
AGE : 36 YEARS.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI R.S.LAGALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HESCOM, HUBBALLI - 580 009.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
O & M, HESCOM, ZONAL OFFICE,
BELAGAVI - 590 006.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
O & M. GESCOM, VIJAYAPURA DIVISION,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 103.
2
4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
O & M, CITY SUB-DIVISION-1,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 102.
5. M.J.PAREKH,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O SY.NO.23.1 & 24.2,
OPP. TO SIDDARTH BUILDING, LING ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 103.
...RESPONDENT'S
(SRI GANESH KALBURGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
SRI RAVINDRA REDDY ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND
R2 AND R5 SERVED)
WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION,
QUASHING THE ANNEXURE-B BEARING NO.BJP/NUP-SNA/HS
19-20 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 AND TO DIRECT
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 NOT TO DEMAND THE DUES
BEYOND TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CONSUMPTION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING :
ORDER
Instant writ petition is filed challenging Annexure-B
the demand notice, issued by respondent No.4,
demanding a sum of `3,92,300/- towards arrears of
electricity charges. This court in terms of the interim
order dated 23.03.2020 directed the respondents-
authority to supply the electricity to the petitioner,
since, the petitioner is having electricity supply from the
fourth respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that this matter is covered in terms of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal
No.1672/2020 which is decided on 18.02.2020. The
learned counsel for the respondents would also submit
the question involved in this case is squarely covered in
terms of the judgment referred to above.
3. This Court has considered the contentions
raised in the petition as well as the above-referred
judgment. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion
that in view of the judgment referred to above, nothing
survives in this petition and the writ petitioner is liable
to pay the amount demanded in terms of Annexure-B.
4. The learned counsel would further make his
submission that the petitioner would make payment of
the amount demanded and he needs reasonable time
given the fact that the petitioner company has faced
difficulties on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.
5. The petitioner is permitted to make an
application to the fourth respondent seeking an
extension of time for making payment.
6. If such application is made the same may be
considered showing some leniency in favour of the
petitioner as regards to time frame for payment.
7. With this observation, the writ petition is
disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sn
