TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant-company is none other than the sister concern of Amar Amit Jalna Alloys (P.) Ltd. and was representing the same consumer who had committed the default and it was held that condition 23(b) of the conditions of miscellaneous charges for supply of electricity energy would apply to the appellant-company. Thus by change of directors or by change of pattern of the shareholding, the appellant-company is really a different entity than Amit Products (India) Ltd. who filed the previous. The reasons given in the previous judgment which were confirmed by this Court would apply with all force against the present appellant-company and the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-company. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely, W.P. No. 2090 of 2002. In the writ petition, the appellant-company requested for power supply to its factory contending that it is a separate company situated at a separate portion of the property comprised in the same Survey No. and the insistence of the MSEB to pay the arrears of electricity charges to be payable by Amar Amit Jalna Alloys (P.) Ltd. and the refusal to give supply was arbitrary and violative of articles 14 and 19(1)( g ) of the Constitution. The matter was elaborately considered by the High Court of Bombay and by judgment dated December 18, 2003, it was held that the appellant-company was seeking connection in respect of the same premises, by the same consumer, under the guise of separate corporate body and it was foun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the property whereas the appellant-company is on the north-western corner side of the property. 6. Learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the very same company had applied for connection and the writ petition filed by the appellant-company previously was dismissed and the same was challenged before this court and this court dismissed SLP and there was further review and curative petition and all of them were dismissed by this court, and therefore, the appellant-company was not justified in filing a fresh appeal. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of both the parties. We are unable to accept the contention of the appellant-company that by changing the members of the board of directors of the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
