B. C. Munirathinam Naidu vs Chengalpattu Electricity System and another

The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed suit O.S.No.872 of 1978 before the District Munsif, Poonamallee, for mandatory injunction and for

permanent injunction against the respondents herein averring as follows:-

The appellant had three service connections as set out in plaint A schedule and they were all agricultural services. The respondents disconnected

the lines mentioned in A schedule in or about February 1978 without assigning any reason whatsoever. The respondents required the appellant to

pay certain disputed bills in respect of a bulk load. There was also a suit pending in the Sub-Court, Chingleput, in respect of the said disputed bills.

However, the respondents were not entitled to cut off the A schedule services on the ground that the other arrears had not been paid. The

respondents were therefore liable to restore the A schedule services. The appellant had another service as set out in schedule B. That also could

not be disconnected on the ground of alleged non-payment of arrears of bill in respect of a service belonging to Rajeswari Sugars of which the

appellant was managing agent. The respondents had to be injuncted from disconnecting B schedule service.

The respondents resisted the suit contending inter alia as follows:

The appellant was the defendant in O.S.No.177 of 1972 filed by the respondents for recovery of current consumption arrears. The suit was

decreed for Rs.18,873.23 with subsequent interest at 6% p.a. and costs of Rs.2,520.20. As the above decree was not satisfied, respondents were

entitled to recover all the arrears from the appellant by adding the arrears to the current consumption bills relating to any other service standing in

his name as per clause 40(c) of the revised terms and conditions of the respondent Board. The services set out in schedule A to the plaint were

disconnected for non-payment of current consumption charges as per the bills. The decree had been passed as early as on 30.11.1974. The action

of the respondents could not be said to be improper or illegal. The plaintiff was not entitled to either mandatory injunction or permanent injunction.

The learned District Munsif, Poonamallee, by his judgment and decree dated 27.11.1983 dismissed the suit ant this was confirmed by the

learned Subordinate Judge, Chingleput, in the appeal filed by the appellant in A.S.No.52 of 1983 by his judgment and decree dated 10.11.1983.

Aggrieved, the present second appeal has been filed.

At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law was framed for decision in the second appeal:

Whether the lower appellate court having found that the appellant is a partner of M/s Rajeswari Sugars, is right in holding that the personal service

connection of the appellant could be disconnected for the arrears payable by M/s Rajeswari Sugars?

Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. G.K. Selvarajan submitted that the respondents had obtained a decree against the partners of Rajeswari

Sugars in O.S.No.177 of 1972 and the only remedy if any, of the respondents was to proceed to execute the said decree by proceeding against

the firm and its assets. They could not coerce the appellant in coming to terms by disconnecting his other services, The learned counsel relied on

the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Tanduri Chenchiah and Others Vs. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board,

Hyderabad and Others, in which a similar question arose for consideration before the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Bench held that the

Department could not disconnect the individual services of the consumer to realise any alleged arrears due from the firm in which the consumer was

a partner.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the Electricity Board contended that the terms of clause 40(c) of the revised terms and conditions of the

Electricity Board entitled them to proceed to disconnect the connections in the name of the consumer till all the arrears due on all services and

arrears of unconnected minimum charges were paid not withstanding the fact that the services were separate and were covered by separate

agreements and not withstanding that one or other of the services was under disconnection for non-payment of charges or other reasons. It was

also contended by the learned counsel for the Electricity Board that the appellant was the sole proprietor of Rajeswari Sugars and it was not open

to him to say that for realisation of the arrears due in respect of the concern Rajeswari Sugars the Department could not disconnect his individual

services.

At the instance of this Court, the proceedings relating to the suit O.S.No.177 of 1972 were produced. It is seen from the decree in the suit

O.S.No.177 of 1972 that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board represented by the Superintending Engineer, Chingleput, had filed a suit against M/s

Rajeswari Sugars represented by its managing agent, the present appellant and two others namely Nithyanandam, son of the appellant and minor

Poornachandran also son of the appellant represented by court guardian and advocate appointed as per order dated 18.7.1974 in I.A.No.326 of

1974. The suit was for recovery of Rs.18,873.23 and in the suit, the second defendant Nithyanandam had remained, ex parte and the first

defendant Rajeswari Sugars represented by the appellant herein though had engaged counsel, his counsel reported ''no instructions'' and he

remained absent and he was set ex parte. A decree came to be passed for the amount claimed on 30.11.1974. In view of the fact that the

respondents themselves had shown Rajeswari, Sugars as a partnership firm, it is not now open to them to contend that the appellant was the sole

proprietor of the said firm. When this position is conceded, then the next, question is whether the respondents could disconnect the individual

services of the appellant for the alleged non-payment of the arrears due from the firm of which, the appellant was only a partner. In identical

circumstances, where a firm of which a person who was the managing partner entered into service contract with the Electricity Board and the

Board recognised the firm as the consumer and it committed default and fell into arrears, the Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that to

recover those arrears, the Board could not disconnect private and personal service connection of the said person under condition 6.14 which was

identical to condition No.40(c) relied on by the Department in the present case. The Bench held that even though the individual was a partner of

the firm the actual consumer was only the firm and not the individual and the individual was a consumer only in respect of his personal and private

service connection and simply because he was a partner of the firm which was a consumer in relation to the other service, he could not be called

consumer in respect of the service standing in the name of the firm. The Board had recognised the firm as a consumer and not any individual

partner or the managing partner. The individual merely represented by the firm in entering into a contract as managing partner and by no stretch of

imagination could he be called the firm itself. That did not detract from his legal liability to pay the dues of the firm but he did not become the firm

itself. When he was not the firm, he could not be considered the consumer in respect of the connection which the firm had. Consequently, when the

firm committed default and fell into arrears, to recover them, the Board could not disconnect the private and personal service connection of the

individual. As already stated the wording of condition 40(c) is identical with the condition 6.14 dealt with by the Bench of the Andhra Pradesh

High Court. Apparently, after obtaining the decree, the respondents had not put it into execution and had chosen this short cut to realise the decree

amount which, in my opinion, the respondents were not entitled to do. The decision of the courts below refusing to grant injunction as prayed for

by the appellant is clearly erroneous and against law. Consequently, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant. The

second appeal will stand allowed. The judgments and the decrees of the courts below dismissing the suit will stand set aside and the suit

O.S.No.872 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif of Poonamallee will stand decreed as prayed for. However, there will be no order as to

costs.