Birla Jute Mfg. Co. and Another Vs. The State of M.P. and Others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.6975 of 1994
Petitioner: Birla Jute Mfg. Co. and Another
Respondent: The State of M.P. and Others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.6975 of 1994
Judges: V.N. KHARE & S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 02, 2000
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Articles 226, 136 – Supply of raw water under agreement – Consumer company giving voluntary undertaking to pay agreed rates – Demand of late fee and surcharge set aside by High Court – Still appeal filed. Held that there is merit in appeal as voluntary undertaking was given and there is no material to show any duress. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Appellant no.1 herein is a company (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’) registered under the Companies’ Act and has a factory in the district of Satna in the State of Madhya Pradesh where it is manufacturing cement. On the basis of agreement between the Company and the State of Madhya Pradesh, the State of Madhya Pradesh is supplying raw
water directly from the river to the
appellant’s factory. Dispute in this case is as to at what rate the Company is liable to pay the water charges. In the year 1983 the Company was served with
three notices of demand. The first demand notice dated 2.2.83 was for Rs.43,45,050.11 for the period 1.8.69 to 31.3.81. The second demand was dated 2.2.83 for the period 1.4.81 to 31.3.82. The third demand is dated 8.9.86 for Rs.21,78,812.15 for the period 14.3.86 to 31.8.86. Under the first demand water charges were assessed at the rate of Rs.1.50 per 1000 gallons with late fee and surcharge. The second demand was for late payment and surcharge. The third demand was at the rate of Rs.2.20 per 1000 litres, which is equal to Rs. 10/- per 1000 gallons. It is relevant to mention here that on 3.8.82 the Company entered into an agreement wherein it undertook to pay water charges at the rate of Rs.2.25 per 4540 litres with effect from 1st April, 1981 and for the period prior to 1.4..81 the Company gave undertaking that they would accept the rate fixed by the State Government from time to time. After giving the said undertaking the appellant challenged the aforesaid three demands by means of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court was of the view that the third demand for the period 14.3.86 to 31.8.86 was unreasonable as it was found that the rate on the basis of which the demands were raised was excessive. The High Court found that the respondent was not entitled to late payment charges and surcharge. Consequently, the first and second demand were also set aside because the demand included late payment and surcharge. The High Court was of the further view that the appellant-Company is bound by the undertaking given by it and the Company is liable to pay water charges at the rate of Rs.1.50 per 1000 gallons prior to 1.4.81 and Rs.2.25 per 1000 gallons after 1.4.81. The High Court further directed the respondents to fix the reasonable rate for untreated water, after hearing the appellant for the period 14.3.86 to 31.8.86. Although the appellant got the sub-stantial relief from the High Court, yet it has chosen to file this appeal.
2. Learned Counsel, appearing for the appellant, urged that the undertaking given by the appellant-Company was under duress and, therefore, it is not an undertaking in the eyes of law and the appellant is not liable to pay the water charges under such circumstances. There is no material before us to come to this conclusion that the undertaking given by the appellant was under duress. On the contrary we find that the appellant had given the solemn undertaking voluntarily. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal.
3. The appeal is, accordingly dismissed with costs. The respond-ents shall now fix the charges as directed by the High Court within a month.
1. Appellant no.1 herein is a company (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’) registered under the Companies’ Act and has a factory in the district of Satna in the State of Madhya Pradesh where it is manufacturing cement. On the basis of agreement between the Company and the State of Madhya Pradesh, the State of Madhya Pradesh is supplying raw
water directly from the river to the
appellant’s factory. Dispute in this case is as to at what rate the Company is liable to pay the water charges. In the year 1983 the Company was served with
three notices of demand. The first demand notice dated 2.2.83 was for Rs.43,45,050.11 for the period 1.8.69 to 31.3.81. The second demand was dated 2.2.83 for the period 1.4.81 to 31.3.82. The third demand is dated 8.9.86 for Rs.21,78,812.15 for the period 14.3.86 to 31.8.86. Under the first demand water charges were assessed at the rate of Rs.1.50 per 1000 gallons with late fee and surcharge. The second demand was for late payment and surcharge. The third demand was at the rate of Rs.2.20 per 1000 litres, which is equal to Rs. 10/- per 1000 gallons. It is relevant to mention here that on 3.8.82 the Company entered into an agreement wherein it undertook to pay water charges at the rate of Rs.2.25 per 4540 litres with effect from 1st April, 1981 and for the period prior to 1.4..81 the Company gave undertaking that they would accept the rate fixed by the State Government from time to time. After giving the said undertaking the appellant challenged the aforesaid three demands by means of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court was of the view that the third demand for the period 14.3.86 to 31.8.86 was unreasonable as it was found that the rate on the basis of which the demands were raised was excessive. The High Court found that the respondent was not entitled to late payment charges and surcharge. Consequently, the first and second demand were also set aside because the demand included late payment and surcharge. The High Court was of the further view that the appellant-Company is bound by the undertaking given by it and the Company is liable to pay water charges at the rate of Rs.1.50 per 1000 gallons prior to 1.4.81 and Rs.2.25 per 1000 gallons after 1.4.81. The High Court further directed the respondents to fix the reasonable rate for untreated water, after hearing the appellant for the period 14.3.86 to 31.8.86. Although the appellant got the sub-stantial relief from the High Court, yet it has chosen to file this appeal.
2. Learned Counsel, appearing for the appellant, urged that the undertaking given by the appellant-Company was under duress and, therefore, it is not an undertaking in the eyes of law and the appellant is not liable to pay the water charges under such circumstances. There is no material before us to come to this conclusion that the undertaking given by the appellant was under duress. On the contrary we find that the appellant had given the solemn undertaking voluntarily. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal.
3. The appeal is, accordingly dismissed with costs. The respond-ents shall now fix the charges as directed by the High Court within a month.
