Case Details

Century Rayon Ltd Vs Ivp Limited

Case Details

casenoCase TypeM.C.A.
casenoFiling Number149/2018
casenoRegistration Number13/2018
caseno Filing Date20-02-2018
hearingRegistration Date20-02-2018
hearingFirst Hearing Date20th February 2018
dateDecision Date28th June 2018
casestatusCase StatusCase Disposed
courtCourt Number and Judge5-Dist. Judge-4 And Asstt. Sessions Judge Kalyan;
natureNature of DisposalContested--Dismissed;

Petitioners & Respondents

contactsPetitioner

Century Rayon Ltd, ;

contactsPetitioner Advocate

Nirav Shaha;

contacts Respondent Name

Ivp Limited, Msdcl Kalyan, Ramesh Patil;

Order Details

orderdate Order Date25-04-2018 documents

 .. 1 ..     Misc. Civil Appeal No. 13/2018 CNR NO. ­ MHTH060006312018 Order Below Exh.14 : ORDER BELOW EXH. 14 IN  MISC. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13/2018 : CNR NO. ­ MHTH060006312018 Century Rayon Limited                           .. Appellant.                        Versus I.V.P. Limited & 2 Ors.                       .. Respondents. …............. 1] Perused the application and the submissions made by   the   Ld.   Counsel.   This   Court   has   passed   interim   order below   Exh.1   by   suspending   the   effect   and   execution   of impugned order passed by Ld. Trial  Court   in Regular Civil Suit   No.   625/2017   subject   to   depositing   advance compensation amount of Rs. 3,50,000/­.  2] The nature of interim order passed by this Court, is of interim nature and existence of said interim order is for limited period upto 25/06/2018. In such situation, the order passed by this Court can not be said strictly as appellable in nature,   and   therefore,   present   application   for   suspending effect and execution of this interim temporary order can not be accepted by granting stay, as prayed for. The application is devoid of merits. Hence, following order :  .. 2/-  .. 2 ..     Misc. Civil Appeal No. 13/2018 CNR NO. ­ MHTH060006312018 Order Below Exh.14 : ORDER :  Application (Exh.14) for suspension of effect and  execution of  order passed by this  Court,  dated   25/04/2018, is hereby rejected.                                                                                                             Sd/­ Kalyan.                                                  (  S.P.Gogarkar ) Date : 25/04/2018.                               District Judge – 3,                                                                      Kalyan.                                                                .. /-

orderdate Order Date25-04-2018 documents

 .. 1 ..     Misc. Civil Appeal No. 13/2018 CNR NO. ­ MHTH060006312018 Interim Order Below Exh.1 : INTERIM ORDER BELOW EXH. 1 IN  MISC. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13/2018 : CNR NO. ­ MHTH060006312018 Century Rayon Limited                           .. Appellant.                        Versus I.V.P. Limited through its authorized representative Mr. Rushikesh Karandikar & 2 Ors.                                              .. Respondents. …............. 1]  The present Misc. Civil Appeal is preferred by the appellant Century Rayon Limited under Order 43, Rule 1 of the  Code  of  Civil   Procedure   to   challenge   the   legality   and correctness   of   the   impugned  order  passed  by  Ld.   Jt.  Civil Judge (J.D.) Kalyan below temporary injunction application Exh.5, by which Ld. Trial Court pleased to grant temporary injunction   preventing   appellant/defendant   from   making pits /holes for erecting poles to install High Tension Electric Supply Transmission Tower, over the suit land.  2] Being   aggrieved   by   the   impugned   order, appellant/defendant   Century   Rayon   Limited   is   before   this Court to agitate its grievances against the impugned order.  .. 2/-  .. 2 ..     Misc. Civil Appeal No. 13/2018 CNR NO. ­ MHTH060006312018 Interim Order Below Exh.1 Both the parties have argued at length placing reliance on the corresponding   documentary   proofs   to   substantiate   their respective stand. It reveals from the arguments advanced on behalf  of  appellant/defendant   that   the  Ld.  Trial  Court  has committed jurisdictional error while entertaining declaration suit   and   temporary   injunction   application,   preferred   by respondent No. 1/plaintiff. On the other hand, it is the case of respondent No. 1 / plaintiff that to protect its civil rights, the only appropriate forum available, is the Civil Court and thus, plaintiff has availed correct recourse of law.  3] The provisions of Section 164 of the Electricity Act and Section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act are tried to interpret to   challenge   the   jurisdiction   of   Civil   Court.   On   the   other hand, the required approval and the aspect of compensation from the District Magistrate as envisages under the provisions of   the   same  Act,   are   tried   to   canvass   by  both   the  parties according to their respective stance.  4] It is whispered on record that appellant / defendant Century Rayon Limited is ready to compensate the damage adequately, likely to be caused by way of installation of High Tension Electric Supply Transmission Tower. Though  .. 3/-  .. 3 ..     Misc. Civil Appeal No. 13/2018 CNR NO. ­ MHTH060006312018 Interim Order Below Exh.1 said   whisper   is   repeated   by   making   statement   at   Bar   on behalf  of  appellant/defendant,  no such proposal  alleged to have   been   coming­forth   nor   the   required   procedure   is followed.  5] It   is   pertinent   to   note   that   due   to   paucity   of sufficient time to decide this matter on merits, considering all these factual aspects in legal parlance because of forthcoming summer   vacation   and   to   protect   the   interests   of   both   the parties,   this  Court   is   inclined   to  pass   interim  order  below Exh.1.  6] It   is  pertinent   to  note   that   appellant/defendant have prayed for setting aside the injunction order or in the alternative,   to   grant   stay   to   the   effect   and   execution   of impugned order. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of respondent No. 1 /plaintiff that if the stay is granted, then respondent/plaintiff would be compelled to run pillar to post to seek adequate relief of compensation.  7] Thus,   considering   the   subject   matter   of   the dispute, it  appeals to my mind that it revolves around non payment of compensatory amount by following due  .. 4/-  .. 4 ..     Misc. Civil Appeal No. 13/2018 CNR NO. ­ MHTH060006312018 Interim Order Below Exh.1 procedure of law. Hence, considering the implied inclination  of   appellant/defendant   to   pay   compensation,   it   would   be proper to ask appellant/defendant Century Rayon Limited to deposit   reasonable   amount   till   grant   of   proposal   of compensation   by   the   District   Magistrate.   It   reveals   from record that both the parties have tried to blame each other for not   approaching   to   the   District   Magistrate   to   decide   the quantum of compensation. In such situation, considering the initiated work of laying down High Tension Electricity Supply Line by erecting transmission tower for the development of factory business and considering the civil rights involved in the present dispute by way of acquisition of land portion, I am inclined to grant interim relief till the decision of present Misc. Civil Appeal on merits, with full pledged hearing. In the result, I proceed to pass following order :  : ORDER :  I] Final hearing and decision of Misc. Civil Appeal   No. 13/2018 is hereby postponed till next date.   Till then, interim order is passed, as follows : i] The effect and execution of impugned order  passed below Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.  625/2017, dated 06/01/2018, is hereby  suspended till 25th June, 2018, subject to .. 5/-  .. 5 ..     Misc. Civil Appeal No. 13/2018 CNR NO. ­ MHTH060006312018 Interim Order Below Exh.1 payment of advance compensation amount  Rs. 3,50,000/­ ( Rs. Three Lakhs Fifty Thousands  only) to be deposited on or before 27/04/2018,   failing which the stay order shall automatically   stand cancelled.  II] The appellant/defendant Century Rayon Limited is directed to initiate appropriate proceeding  through Licensing Authority, before   the   District   Magistrate, Thane, till next date.  III] Considering the constrain of short time, steno  copy be provided to both the parties for necessary  compliance.  IV] Hearing of this appeal be posted on 25/06/2018.                                                                                                                                                   Sd/­ Kalyan.                                                  (  S.P.Gogarkar ) Date : 25/04/2018.                               District Judge – 3,                                                                      Kalyan.                                                                      Steno Copy                                                                        Sd/­                                                                     ( M.K.Dixit)                                                                 District Court – 3,                                                                         Kalyan.  .. /-

Final Order Judgement

orderdateOrder Date28-06-2018 documents
                                                                              1                        M.C.A. No. 13/2018 (Judgment)      (CNR- MHTH06-000631-2018 ) Presented on : 20/02/2018 Registered on: 20/02/2018 Decided on : 28/06/2018 Duration : Y-00 M-04 D-08 IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE - 4, KALYAN, AT : KALYAN (Presided over by S.R. Pahade) Misc.Civil Appeal No. 13/2018 Exh.No.:- (CNR-MHTH06-000631-2018) Century Rayon Ltd. Office : Industry House, 159 Churchgate, Reclamation Mumbai : 20 …....Appellant (Ori.Deft.No.2) Vs. 1) IVP Ltd. Regd.Office at Shahikant Redij Marg Ghorupdeo, Mumbai : 400 033 Through its authorised representative Shri. Rushikesh Mukund Karandikar Age 36 years, Occ. Service R/at : Shahikant Redij Marg Ghorupdeo, Mumbai : 33 2) Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. Kalyan Division, Tejashree Bldg., Murbad Road, Kalyan 3) Shri. Ramesh Patil Age 50 years, Occ. Business R/at : Vadavali, Post Atale Tal. Kalyan ….Respondents Shri. Subin Sohrab Morris :- Ld. Adv. for appellants Smt. Jai Kanade :- Ld. Adv. for respondent No.1                                                                                     2                        M.C.A. No. 13/2018 (Judgment)      (CNR- MHTH06-000631-2018 ) Shri. Aditya Singh :- Ld. Adv. for respondent Nos. 2 Shri.Sachin Patil :- Ld. Adv. for respondent No.3 -: JUDGMENT :- (Delivered on this 28 th day of June, 2018) 1] Present appeal is filed by the appellant (original defendant No.2) against the order passed by the 6th Jt. Civil Judge, J.D., Kalyan on the application for temporary injunction in R.C.S. No. 625/2017 . (For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties are referred and called by their original nomenclature i.e. plaintiff and defendants). 2] The plaintiff has filed the suit under Sec. 34, 37 & 38 of the Specific Relief Act and also filed application under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. at Exh. 5 3] It is contended by the plaintiff that the plaintiff is listed company engaged in the business of Foundry Chemicals (Catalyst). The defendant No.1 is a Government Electric Supply Company engaged in the business of distribution of electric supply formed and registered under the provisions of Indian Electricity Act. The defendant No.2 is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of Chemicals. It has its plant at village Mohone, Tal. Kalyan. It is further contended by the plaintiffs that the plaintiff company has purchased various lands in and around Kalyan. The land Survey No. 43/32, situated at village Vadavali admeasuring 20 R Pot Kharaba 1 R and at village Mohone bearing S.No. 42/2 admeasuring 22 R, 30 P and Survey No. 44/2 admeasuring about 50 R Pot Kharaba 3 R is the suit land. Those are                                                                                     3                        M.C.A. No. 13/2018 (Judgment)      (CNR- MHTH06-000631-2018 ) in settled possession of the plaintiff Company. The name of the plaintiff company is recorded in 7/12 extract. The plaintiffs have deployed their security guards to protect their land. The plaintiffs were utterly shocked and surprised to observe the ongoing constructions on their land as the MSEB, any of its associated companies or the contractor never intimated or informed the plaintiff's company. The guards objected to excavation of the earth, however the contractor abused them and threw them out of the said land with a life threatening warning. It is further contended by the plaintiff that the defendants have no concern with the suit land. No portion of the suit lands have been acquired by the defendant No.1 for any purpose. 4] It is further contended that, it appears that the defendant No.2 has applied to the defendant No.1 for high tension electric supply to their factory and for this purpose the defendants want to erect electric towers to connect wires from their transmission center to the defendant No.2 company. So as to transmit the high tension electric power supply to their factory. The defendant on or about 22/12/2017 have started to work of excavation of two big holes/ditches in the suit land with the help of proclaims having dimensions of 50ft x 50 ft and having 5 to 6 feet depth. On inquiry plaintiff came to know that the defendant No.1 is erecting big electric towers so as to transmit the high tension electric supply to the factory of defendant No.2. For this purpose they have hired services of defendant No.3. It is further contended by the plaintiff that the defendants have no concern with the suit lands. The defendant No.1 has not initiated any acquisition proceedings in respect of the suit lands and act of the defendant from making big holes and erecting high                                                                                     4                        M.C.A. No. 13/2018 (Judgment)      (CNR- MHTH06-000631-2018 ) tensions electricity towers upon the suit land is high handed, despotic, arbitrary, ab initio void and illegal and it amounts to trespass on the plaintiff's private property. The representative of the plaintiff Shri. Karandikar and Shri. Tare objected the work of excavation and also made written complaint to the defendant No. 1 & 2 regarding their strong objection for erection. However, on 25/12/2017 the defendants personnel again came in the suit land and made attempt to excavate the holes, on objection raised by the representatives of the plaintiff company, the said personnel paid no heed. Therefore, the cause of action arose to the plaintiff to file the suit. The plaintiff had also issued letter to Sr. Inspector, Kalyan Police_Station. On these grounds, it is further contended that the plaintiffs have strong prima facie case and balance of convenience is lying in favour of the plaintiff and no prejudice will be cause to the defendants. On these grounds it is prayed that the temporary injunction order be issued against the defendants restraining them for making holes for erecting polices on any part of the property unless and until required portion of the suit property is lawfully acquired. 5] The defendant No.1 has filed reply. It is submitted that the suit of the plaintiff is false and fictitious. The defendant No.2 has applied to defendant No.1 for supply of 100 KV power. The defendant No.1 agreed to provide the electricity supply on 100 KV power through high tension transmission lines. The power supply liner and transmission tower are to be installed by the defendant No.2 under supervision of MSETCL and same will be handed over to the defendant No.1. It is further submitted that the provisions of Electricity Act as well as Indian                                                                                     5                        M.C.A. No. 13/2018 (Judgment)      (CNR- MHTH06-000631-2018 ) Telegraph Act provides for erection of high tension power line and for erection of tower the consent of land owner is not necessary. The compensation can be given to the legal owner of the land even after erection of the tower. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has filed case on the basis of wrong information. The work of foundation of completed and only erection of tower is remain and lastly prayed for dismissal of application with costs. 6] The defendant No.2 filed reply at Exh. 14. It is submitted that the defendant No.2 is a public limited company engaging business of manufacturing of rayon filament yarn and its plant is at village Shahad, Dist. Thane. The company has 22 KV of electricity line. It had frequent power interruptions and therefore, the company had decided to take supply from 100 KV lines. Therefore, the defendant No.2 has filed an application to defendant No. 1 for supply of 100 KV power. Accordingly, the defendant No.1 had agreed to provide electricity of 100 KV through high tension transmission lines. The power supply lines and transmission tower are to be installed by the defendant No.2 under the supervision of MSETCL and the same will be handed over to defendant No.1. After making survey the defendant No.1 has given the route map and suggested as to how the transmission lines will go and the route map was sanctioned by the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 has given the work order to the contractor approved by the defendant No.1 at the cost of Rs.8,74,45,000/- to be carried under the supervision of MSETCL. The defendant No.2 denied that the plaitniff is in possession of the land where transmission tower is to be erected. One of the transmission tower is located in Survey No. 43/31/c of village Vadavali                                                                                     6                        M.C.A. No. 13/2018 (Judgment)      (CNR- MHTH06-000631-2018 ) and other is in S.No. 46/4/A/2 at village Mohone, Tal. Kalyan. There is no structure erected by the plaintiff. It is a open land. It is further submitted by the defendant No.2 that the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 as well as Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 provide that erection of high tension power line and for erection of tower the consent of land owner is not necessary. . The compensation can be given to the owner of the land even after erection of the tower and there is no irreparable loss to the plaintiff. It is further submitted that the work is in progress and nothing is done in the land of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief. It is further submitted that the defendant No.1 is a distribution company and high tension lines and the towers are for the benefit of the public at large and to encourage the industrial development of the vicinity. The defendant No. 3 is the land owner and not contractor. The plaintiff has suppressed the fact and by making false pleadings implicated defendant No.1 and has not approached with clean hands. It is further submitted that the foundation of one tower is already being completed and the same is in village Mohone and the tower is not in the land of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs on the basis of wrong information and without verifying facts, has filed suit in order to extract money. The consent of the land owner is not required for the work of erection of high tension wire. The greater hardship would cause to the defendant No.2. The plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs. The defendant No.2 is ready to compensate the plaintiff if the District Magistrate comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for compensation and fixes the compensation. On these grounds prayed for rejection of the application.                                                                                     7                        M.C.A. No. 13/2018 (Judgment)      (CNR- MHTH06-000631-2018 ) 7] The defendant No.3 filed reply at Exh. 22. It is submitted that the application is not maintainable. He is not sub contractor. He is the owner of the land S.No. 43/31(p) situated at Vadavali. The defendant No.1 is constituted under the provision of Indian Electricity Act. The defendant No.1 has after survey found that it is feasible to provide the high tension line of 100 KV to the defendant No.2 and accordingly sanction letter was given. The work is carried out. There are two towers required to be installed out of that one tower is completed. And installation of work of 2nd tower is going on Survey No. 43/31(p) and not in survey No. 43/32. The defendant No. 3 is not having required qualification. He has given his consent to install 2nd high tension tower in his land S.No. 43/31(p) and he will approach to Collector for compensation. He denied that installation of high tension wire is not in law. The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land. There is no compound wall, there is no fencing. The tower is going to erect near to bore well of the defendant No.3. It is further submitted that the power of the compensation invested with the Collector and separate tribunal in frame and there is a provision of decided the dispute and to file appeal when there is a separate tribunal in frame and civil court has no jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has no prima facie case, no balance of convenience lies in his favour and there will be no irreparable loss to the plaintiff. On these grounds prayed for rejection of application. 8] After hearing both parties, Ld. Trial Court has allowed the application. Prima facie case and balance of convenience held in favour of the plaintiff and it is also held that the plaintiff will suffer irreparable                                                                                     8                        M.C.A. No. 13/2018 (Judgment)      (CNR- MHTH06-000631-2018 ) loss. The application came to be allowed and it is ordered that the defendants and its officers, agents, servants, temporarily restrained from making holes for erection poles in part of suit land without following due procedure of law. 9] The appellant who is defendant has challenged the order on the ground that route map does not required to show survey number and the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent did not had locus standie to file the suit. MSETCL is a telegraphic authority with full power under the Telegraph Act, 1885 read with the Electricity Act, 2003 and failed to appreciate that the defendant no. 2 has not shown the damage that has alleged to have been caused. The determination of compensation for damage if any caused is not a ground for obtaining stay/injunction causing obstruction to the work of laying down of electricity lines and towers. The right of way is not required and is not a condition precedent for laying down of electricity towers and lines. The Ld. Trial Judge erred in holding that due process of law was not followed by the appellant and failed to interpret the provisions of Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 and Section 164 of Electricity Act, 2003. The work is not carrying by the respondent No.2 in his own capacity. The Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that MSETCL is not acquiring any land but has a right in law to lay down the transmission lines. 75% work have been completed by the MSETCL and also failed to consider that the respondent No.1 is not in possession of the suit property. The Ld. Trial Judge failed to interpret the judgment passed in Santhana Raj Vs. The Chief Engineer W.P.. the work is carrying under the provision of MSETCL. On these grounds it is prayed for setting                                                                                     9                        M.C.A. No. 13/2018 (Judgment)      (CNR- MHTH06-000631-2018 ) aside the order. 10] Heard the Ld. Advocates Shri. Zubin Sohrab Morris for appellant, Smt. Jai Kanade for respondent No.1, Shri. Aditya Singh for respondent No.2 and Shri. Sachin Patil for respondent No.3. Perused the record and order passed by the learned Trial Court below Exh. 5. Following points arise for my determination, against each I have recorded my findings alongwith reasons as follows :- POINTS FINDINGS 1 Whether plaintiff is having prima facie case ? In the affirmative 2 Whether balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiff ? In the affirmative. 3 Whether plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss ? In the affirmative 4 Whether interference is required in the order passed by the learned trial court in RCS 625/2017 dated 6/1/2018? In the negative 5 What order ? As per final order. : REASONS : AS TO POINT NOS. 1 TO 4 :- 11] It is argued on behalf of the appellant that as per the application filed by the appellant for 100 KV electric supply to MSETCL, with defendant No.2 who is defendant No.1 in the original suit, has consented for electric supply. MSETCL who is notified under                                                                                     10                        M.C.A. No. 13/2018 (Judgment)      (CNR- MHTH06-000631-2018 ) Sec. 164 of Electricity Supply Act has power to lay electric lines under its power following provisions of Sec. 10 read with Sec. 16(1)(4) of Telegraph Act. It is in accordance with the due process of law and not require prior notice to the land owner, therefore, does not commit any trespass, when the person authorised by MSETCL working under supervision of MSETCL enters upon any land for laying down the electric lines. It is specifically argued that no consent of land owner is required. It is further argued that 80% of the work under sanction was completed and it is in accordance with the due process of law. It is further argued that the relief claimed by the plaintiff is infructuous and is not tenable. 12] On the other side it is argued on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that as per Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Sec. 16(1) and (2) of the Telegraph Act, MSETCL is empowered for placing of electrical lines and authorized the appellant to execute the work of MSETCL. 13] On behalf of the respondent No.3 is is argued that he is land owner and he has no objection for the work. 14] The respondent No.1/ plaintiff is contesting the appeal. It is argued on behalf of the respondent No.1 that consent was not taken. Notification is not produced before the Court. Subsequent development should not be considered and there is no affidavit in support of submission on the point of subsequent development. The appellant cannot enter into the land and has committed trespass. There is no                                                                                     11                        M.C.A. No. 13/2018 (Judgment)      (CNR- MHTH06-000631-2018 ) authority to defendants to do such work in suit land.. The plaintiff has obstructed/resisted for the work. The Ld. Trial Court has properly appreciated and given proper findings. The appeal is without merits. On these grounds prayed for dismissal of appeal. 15] In view of the argument on behalf of both parties, I have gone though the order and documents place on record. 16] In order to prove prima facie case, the plaintiff has filed documents i.e. Sale Deed in respect of suit land, 7/12 extract, photographs, office copy of complaint filed by the complainant with defendant, office copy of complaint filed by the plaintiff with police, copy of resolution passed by the plaintiff company. 17] On the other side, the appellant/defendant No.2 has filed permission by the defendant No.1 for installation, copy of challan, copy of work order given to Shubham Engineering Pvt. Ltd., copy of Power of Attorney given to Subodh Dave to act on behalf of company, consent letter of Shardabai, 7/12 extract of land S.No. 46/4/A/2, consent letter of defendant No.3, 7/12 extract and route map sanctioned by concerned authority. 18] The main contention of the plaintiff is that, the defendant No.3 at the instance of defendant No. 1 & 2, started the work of excavation and erection of high tension electric wire in the suit land which is owned by the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 to 3 have denied that the land where the work is going on, is owned by the plaintiff. In                                                                                     12                        M.C.A. No. 13/2018 (Judgment)      (CNR- MHTH06-000631-2018 ) the reply of defendant No. 1 to 3, they have stated that the work of tower is going on S.No. 43/31(p) and not in S.No. 43/32. As per the permission given by defendant No.1 dtd. 24/5/2017, there is no mentioned of the survey numbers of land. The route map is filed by the defendant No.2 by which the construction of electric poles were proposed to be done is also without mentioned of the survey number of the land. Though there is contention from the defendant No. 1 to 3 in respect of the construction in land S.No. 43/31(p) there is no documentary proof to show that the work was not going in the land of the plaintiff. 19] Another contention of the appellant that the work is a public project with much number of beneficiary and the objection at the instance of one private party ought not to be entertained. It is further contention of the appellant that the work is going on under the supervision of MSETCL who approved for supply of 100 KV power has a authority and there is no necessity to issue notice to the land owner. On this point it is to be consider that whether the work carried out by defendants is legal and by following lawful provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and Telegraph Act,1885. 20] As per documents produced by the defendant No. 1, it is clear that as per letter dated 24/5/2017 the defendant No.1 has permitted the 100 KV power supply. There are certain terms and conditions alongwith the letter. Those are as under :- i) Right of way problem for laying of line are to be sorted by Century Rayon at their cost.                                                                                     13                        M.C.A. No. 13/2018 (Judgment)      (CNR- MHTH06-000631-2018 ) ii) The cost estimates have been prepared considering the load requirement Century under Dedicated Distribution Facility i.e. DDF iii) The work to be executed by Consumer i.e. Century, under supervision of MSETCL iv) The work of MSETCL's portion to be executed by the consumer as per specification and standards of MSETCL v) All the statutory clearances/ approvals from various authorities including that of the Chief Engineer (Electrical), GOM, before taking up the erection work of transmission lines and sub-stations switch yard at the Consumer's cost. vi) All payments towards way leave problems, obstructions by local persons are to be sorted by the Consumer for the scope of work to be executed by the Consumer and any compensation for injuries including death shall be borne by the Consumer as per the relevant Act. Vii) Supervision work by MSETCL will be taken up in hand only after receipt of supervision charges towards scope of work involved. viii) The work by MSETCL will be taken up in hand only after receipt of supervision charges towards scope of work involved. ix) The works are to be executed by the Consumer under supervision of S.E.EHV Construction Circle, Nagpur. The consumer has to bay the supervision charges of Rs. 8.86 lakhs. 21] There is provisions to carry out such work as per Sec. 164 of Electricity Act, 2003 read with Sec. 16(1) of Indian Telegraph Act,                                                                                     14                        M.C.A. No. 13/2018 (Judgment)      (CNR- MHTH06-000631-2018 ) 1885 . In order to consider the contention of both party the provisions is to be taken into consideration:- Sec.10 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1884 deals with the power for telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts. The telegraph authority may, from time to time, place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along, or across, and posts in or upon any immovable property: Provided that— (a) the telegraph authority shall not exercise the powers conferred by this section except for the purposes of a telegraph established or maintained by the [Central Government], or to be so established or maintained; (b) the [Central Government] shall not acquire any right other than that of user only in the property under, over, along, across in or upon which the telegraph authority places any telegraph line or post; and (c) except as hereinafter provided, the telegraph authority shall not exercise those powers in respect of any property vested in or under the control or management of any local authority, without the permission of that authority; and (d) in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section, the telegraph authority shall do as little damage as possible, and, when it has exercised those powers in respect of any property other than that referred to in clause (c), shall pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers. As per Sec.16 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 deals with                                                                                     15                        M.C.A. No. 13/2018 (Judgment)      (CNR- MHTH06-000631-2018 ) exercise of powers conferred by section 10, and disputes as to compensation, in case of property other than that of a local authority.— (1) If the exercise of the powers mentioned in section 10 in respect of property referred to in clause (d) of that section is resisted or 45 obstructed, the District Magistrate may, in his discretion, order that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise them. As per Section 164 of Electricity Act 2003, in exercise of powers of Telegraph Authority in certain cases : “The appropriate Government may, by order in writing, for the placing of electric lines or electrical plant for the transmission of electricity or for the purpose of telephonic or telegraphic communications necessary for the proper coordination or works, confer upon any public officer, licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity under this Act, subject to such conditions and restrictions, if any, as the Appropriate Government may think fit to impose and to the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, any of the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under that Act with respect to the placing of telegraph lines and posts for the purposes of a telegraph established or maintained, by the Government or to be so established or maintained”                                                                                     16                        M.C.A. No. 13/2018 (Judgment)      (CNR- MHTH06-000631-2018 ) The scheme of the Sec. 164 of Electricity Act read with Sec. 10 & 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 provides that the licensee may from time to time place and maintain an electric line or electric plant upon any immovable property. Sec. 16(1) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 provides that, if the exercise of the powers mention in Sec. 10 in respect of the property referrer-ed to in Clause (d) of that section is resisted or obstructed the District Magistrate may in his discretion order that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise them. As such, it is statutory obligation on the telegraph authority to make an application to the District Magistrate for an order to permit it to exercise powers as under Sec.10 on the suit property. In the present case if the documents produced by appellants are perused, it is clear that no such application was made by the telegraph authorities. 22] During the argument on behalf of appellant it is submitted that 80% work is done. On this point it is argued on behalf of respondent No.1 that subsequent development are not permissible. On this point reliance is placed on the judgment of Orange City Mobile Collection Vs. City Collection , MANU/MH/0239/2017. In which the Hon'ble High Court held that subsequent event would not be permissible while entertaining the appeal as the same have not been brought on record either by amending the plaint or by seeking permission under provisions of order XLI Rule 27(1) of C.P.C. It is further observed by the Hon'ble High Court that the appeal would have to be decided on the basis of the material that was placed on record before the Trial Court. The appellant has not taken such effort, therefore, in view of observation of the Hon'ble High Court, subsequent development is                                                                                     17                        M.C.A. No. 13/2018 (Judgment)      (CNR- MHTH06-000631-2018 ) not permissible and cannot be taken into consideration. 23] It is further argued on behalf of the appellant that initiating legal proceeding before court on the specious ground that the due process of law has not been complied with in the course of performing the lawful work and sanctioned scheme and obtaining an injunction and continuing to interfere in the performance of the work under the sanctioned scheme is a frivolous, vexatious and wrongful act of the respondent No.1 and the abuse of the process of law. It is further argued that Sec. 51 of the Electricity Act, 1910 is equivalent to section 64 of the Electricity Act, 2003. From an analysis of the above provisions, it is clear that the licensee was not been empowered by the State Government under Sec. 51 of the Electricity Act cannot place any electric supply lines in over any property without the consent of the owner or occupier, thereto,: a person authorized under Sec. 51 can, however, do so without the consent of the owner or occupier whether the owner or occupier has the right to resist, obstruct the placing of the electric supply lines and what should be done when there is such resistance obstruction is a matter which we shall presently advert. It is also argued that as per Sec. 51 of the Electricity Act, the telegraph authority has no power to take initiative for the acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act by virtue of the conferment of such power. The only right involved is right of use of the property for the purposes mentioned in the Sec. 10 of Telegraph Act. The main contention of the appellant is that MSETCL (authorized contractors/persons under its supervision) who is notified under Sec. 164 of Electricity Supply Act is fully empowered to lay down the electric lines (including towers and                                                                                     18                        M.C.A. No. 13/2018 (Judgment)      (CNR- MHTH06-000631-2018 ) support structures) under its power flowing from the provision of Sec. 10 read with Sec. 16(1) and (4) of the Telegraph Act and the work is not required to give prior notice to the land owner and therefore, does not commit any trespass when it or persons authorised by MSETCL enters upon any land for laying down the electric lines. On this point reliance is placed on the Judgment of Bharat Plywood and Timber Products Private Ltd. Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board Trivandraum and others, in which it is observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, “The public officer on whom powers of telegraph authority under Sec. 10 of the Telegraph Act have been conferred under Sec. 51 of the Electricity Act can only exercise the powers under the Telegraph Act and has no power to acquire land under Land Acquisition Act”. In the same case, lastly the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed the parties to approach the District Magistrate if they wish to proceed with the laying of the lines over the petitioner's property. The Hon'ble Apex Court has discarded the validity of Sec. 51 read with Sec. 10 of Telegraph Act in above case. 24] In the present case the work of excavation is going on the suit land. As per the plaintiffs case, he resisted and obstructed for the work, but there is no case that the other side has approached to District Magistrate to exercise the power under Sec. 10 of Indian Telegraph Act on the suit property. 25] In the argument on behalf of the respondent No.2, it is argued that MSETCL being a transmission licensee empowered under                                                                                     19                        M.C.A. No. 13/2018 (Judgment)      (CNR- MHTH06-000631-2018 ) Sec. 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Sec. 16(1) and (2) of the Telegraph Act for placing of electrical lines had authorized the appellant to execute the work of MSETCL under the supervision. It is further argued that the work was carried out in pursuant to the sanctioned scheme published in the Maharashtra Official Gazette dated. 5/1/2018. It is also argued that the respondent No.2 and appellant approached to appropriate competent authority to obtain orders to remove the obstruction being created by the respondent No.1 for completing the work, itself clear that the work was not carried out as per provisions of Sec. 164 of Electricity Act. Thus, prima facie case is appearing in favour of the plaintiff and balance of convenience is also lies in favour of the plaintiff. 26] It is argued on behalf of the appellant that there will be no irreparable loss to the plaintiff if injunction is not granted, on the contrary, the appellant will suffer irreparable loss. Admittedly, the property is not acquired as per the provisions of Electricity Act and the Telegraph Act. If the injunction is refused, then the appellant will succeed in completion of the work and it will cause loss of the plaintiff. The Ld. Trial Court has discussed all the points and allowed the application. The appellant and respondent No. 2 has come with the case that they had approached to the appropriate authority. In such circumstances, I come to the conclusion that the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss in case of refusal of relief. The Ld. Trial Court has properly appreciated and given proper reasoning. Therefore, there is no necessity to interfere into the order. Accordingly, I answer point Nos. 1 to 3 in affirmative and point No. 4 the negative and proceed to pass the                                                                                     20                        M.C.A. No. 13/2018 (Judgment)      (CNR- MHTH06-000631-2018 ) following order :- ORDER 1/- Appeal is dismissed with cost. 2/- Inform the Trial Court accordingly. Kalyan. (S.R. Pahade) Date- 28/06/2018 District Judge-4, Kalyan.      

Similar Cases

Frequently Asked Questions

The Petitioner in case Century Rayon Ltd vs Ivp Limited is Century Rayon Ltd.

The Respondent in case Century Rayon Ltd vs Ivp Limited is Ivp Limited and 3 more.

The case against Ivp Limitedwas filed on 20-02-2018 by Century Rayon Ltd.

The status of case Century Rayon Ltd against Ivp Limited is Case Disposed.