RSA No.4015 of 2000 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 205 SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER INDUSTRIAL AREA AND OTHERS NIPA INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr for the appellant Mr for the respondent *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The defendants, before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.07.1999 passed by the learned First Appellate Court whereby the appeal preferred by the dated 30.07.1998 of the learned t suit instituted by the plaintiff decreed, thereby restraining the appellants of ₹53,720/-, sought to be imposed as penalty vide Memo No. 2914 (Ex. P4) dated 07.10.1991. 2. In brief, the facts are that consumer of electricity supplied by the de and has been regularly paying bills in respect of the electricity consumed by it RSA No.4015 of 2000 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. Date of Decision: SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER INDUSTRIAL AREA AND OTHERS Versus NIPA INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD ... HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Anil Chawla Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the respondent (through V.C.). *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated passed by the learned First Appellate Court whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants–defendants was dismissed ated 30.07.1998 of the learned trial Court was affirmed. By the said decree, the it instituted by the plaintiff-respondent for grant of permanent injunction was reby restraining the appellants-defendants , sought to be imposed as penalty vide Memo No. 2914 (Ex. P4) dated In brief, the facts are that the consumer of electricity supplied by the defendants vide has been regularly paying bills in respect of the electricity consumed by it - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4015 of 2000 (O&M) Date of Decision:04.09.2025 SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER INDUSTRIAL AREA AND OTHERS ... Appellants …Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated passed by the learned First Appellate Court whereby the appeal dismissed and the judgment and decree rial Court was affirmed. By the said decree, the respondent for grant of permanent injunction was defendants from recovering an amount , sought to be imposed as penalty vide Memo No. 2914 (Ex. P4) dated he plaintiff-company was a regular fendants vide meter/account No.USP- has been regularly paying bills in respect of the electricity consumed by it IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants- before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated passed by the learned First Appellate Court whereby the appeal and the judgment and decree rial Court was affirmed. By the said decree, the respondent for grant of permanent injunction was from recovering an amount , sought to be imposed as penalty vide Memo No. 2914 (Ex. P4) dated was a regular -211 has been regularly paying bills in respect of the electricity consumed by it PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.4015 of 2000 (O&M) through the above said meter No. all bills upto date and the latest bills and receipts plaint. On 21.09.1991, premises of the plaintiff’s factory plaintiff on the ground Memo No.2914 dated pay inspection fee of Rs.100/ to deposit a penalty of Rs. 53,720/ of the plaintiff would be disconnected. present suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants permanently from recov any action on the supply of the plaintiff company the plaintiff company was 53.128 KW and when it was found insufficient, of Rs.9,100/- sanctioned to 68.436 KW. 22.8.90 was issued by defendant No.1 KW to 68.436 KW. was complied with, nor any inquiry was made. 3. Upon notice, defendant taking preliminary objection with clean hands as it did not deposit the penalty amount plaintiff as their consumer Ex.P4 dated 7.10.91. company was found drawing extra load of 33.396 KW, and as such, it was rightly RSA No.4015 of 2000 (O&M) -2- hrough the above said meter No.USP-211. The to date and the latest bills and receipts On 21.09.1991, certain officers of the defendants conducted a raid at the premises of the plaintiff’s factory and they threatened to impose penalty on the plaintiff on the ground of consuming more load than was sanctioned. 2914 dated 07.10.91 was served upon the plaintiff pay inspection fee of Rs.100/-, to submit fresh test report of 19.732 KW, and also to deposit a penalty of Rs. 53,720/- within 7 days, failing which the power supply intiff would be disconnected. Thus, present suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants permanently from recovering the alleged amount of Rs. any action on the basis of the said illegal memo supply of the plaintiff company. It was further pleaded that the sanctioned load of the plaintiff company was 53.128 KW and when it was found insufficient, was deposited vide receipt dated 68.436 KW. It is admitted fact that was issued by defendant No.1 whereby the load was increased from 19.732 KW to 68.436 KW. Furthermore, while imposing the penalty, no rul was complied with, nor any inquiry was made. Hence, the Upon notice, defendants contested the suit by filing written statement taking preliminary objection therein that the plaintiff did not come to the Court with clean hands as it did not deposit the penalty amount plaintiff as their consumer of energy was admitted Ex.P4 dated 7.10.91. It was pleaded that when the raid was conducted, the plaintiff was found drawing extra load of 33.396 KW, and as such, it was rightly - 211. The plaintiff-company had been paying to date and the latest bills and receipts were attached along with the certain officers of the defendants conducted a raid at the threatened to impose penalty on the more load than was sanctioned. Resultantly, was served upon the plaintiff-company directing , to submit fresh test report of 19.732 KW, and also within 7 days, failing which the power supply Thus, the plaintiff company filed the present suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants ering the alleged amount of Rs.53,720/- and from taking aid illegal memo and disconnecting the power It was further pleaded that the sanctioned load of the plaintiff company was 53.128 KW and when it was found insufficient, security vide receipt dated 1.3.90 for getting the load that Service Job Order No. 2219 dated whereby the load was increased from 19.732 hile imposing the penalty, no rule or procedure Hence, the civil suit. contested the suit by filing written statement therein that the plaintiff did not come to the Court with clean hands as it did not deposit the penalty amount. On merit, status of the was admitted and also issuance of Memo hen the raid was conducted, the plaintiff was found drawing extra load of 33.396 KW, and as such, it was rightly had been paying ng with the certain officers of the defendants conducted a raid at the threatened to impose penalty on the Resultantly, ing to , to submit fresh test report of 19.732 KW, and also within 7 days, failing which the power supply he plaintiff company filed the present suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and from taking and disconnecting the power It was further pleaded that the sanctioned load of security for getting the load Service Job Order No. 2219 dated whereby the load was increased from 19.732 e or procedure contested the suit by filing written statement, therein that the plaintiff did not come to the Court status of the and also issuance of Memo hen the raid was conducted, the plaintiff- was found drawing extra load of 33.396 KW, and as such, it was rightly PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.4015 of 2000 (O&M) served with notice for Rs.53,720/- imposed as per rules plaintiff-company of 19.732 KW, and thus load of 33.396 KW, and the penalty was calculated on this extra load as per 4. The plaintiff filed replication, controverting the allegations in the written statement, and re pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. In order to prove four witnesses. HSEB, and thereafter, the evidence of the parties was was led. 6. On appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial Court suit for permanent injunction electricity supply, culminating in the decree dated 30.07.1998 7. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st Appellate Court, which also stood dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are based on conjectures and RSA No.4015 of 2000 (O&M) -3- served with notice for disconnection of electric supply in case imposed as per rules is not deposited company had a connected load of 53.128 KW against the sanctioned load of 19.732 KW, and thus, the plaintiff-company load of 33.396 KW, and the penalty was calculated on this extra load as per The plaintiff filed replication, controverting the allegations in the written statement, and re-asserted the contents of the plaint. pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: Whether there is a valid subsisting arbitration agreement between the parties? OPA. Whether the signatures of the plaintiff were taken on blank and printed forms? OPR. Whether the defendants were ready and willing and are still ready and willing to refer the dispute to the Arbitration? OPA. Relief. n order to prove its case, the plaintiff four witnesses. On the other hand, the defendants examined Sh. D.S. Yadav, HSEB, and thereafter, the evidence of the parties was On appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial Court suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from disconnecting the electricity supply, culminating in the decree dated 30.07.1998 Aggrieved thereby, the defendants Appellate Court, which also stood dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant udgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are based on conjectures and - disconnection of electric supply in case penalty of is not deposited. The defendants claimed that the had a connected load of 53.128 KW against the sanctioned load company was found to have unauthorized load of 33.396 KW, and the penalty was calculated on this extra load as per rules. The plaintiff filed replication, controverting the allegations in the asserted the contents of the plaint. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- Whether there is a valid subsisting arbitration agreement Whether the signatures of the plaintiff were taken on blank and Whether the defendants were ready and willing and are still r the dispute to the Arbitration? OPA. the plaintiff-company examined as many as On the other hand, the defendants examined Sh. D.S. Yadav, HSEB, and thereafter, the evidence of the parties was closed. No rebuttal evidence On appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial Court decreed the , restraining the defendants from disconnecting the electricity supply, culminating in the decree dated 30.07.1998. s filed first appeal before the learned Appellate Court, which also stood dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned udgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are based on conjectures and penalty of dants claimed that the had a connected load of 53.128 KW against the sanctioned load was found to have unauthorized rules. The plaintiff filed replication, controverting the allegations in the basis of Whether there is a valid subsisting arbitration agreement Whether the signatures of the plaintiff were taken on blank and Whether the defendants were ready and willing and are still r the dispute to the Arbitration? OPA. company examined as many as On the other hand, the defendants examined Sh. D.S. Yadav, No rebuttal evidence decreed the , restraining the defendants from disconnecting the before the learned that the impugned udgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are based on conjectures and PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.4015 of 2000 (O&M) surmises and, hence, liable to be set aside by this Court. the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on records of the case. It is very well proved on record of the case that no communication or letter from the appellant-Board was received by the load. All the formalities may have been completed by the plaintiff extension of load but in presumed that there was sanction of extended load. The could not extend the load without any approval. Under such circumstances of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed. completing formalities for extended load, the use extended load until and unless there was approval in black and white from the Board. Hence, the findings of reversed. The further contention raised exercised their j It was also urged that even on merit issues should have been in favour of appellant have acted in most arbitrary manner. augmentation o On the basis of these grounds, it Courts below be reversed and the suit of the costs throughout. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent hand, supported the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. It was submitted that the plaintiff formalities for extension of RSA No.4015 of 2000 (O&M) -4- surmises and, hence, liable to be set aside by this Court. the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on records of the case. It is ll proved on record of the case that no communication or letter from the Board was received by the plaintiff load. All the formalities may have been completed by the plaintiff ion of load but in the absence of grant of approval by the Board presumed that there was sanction of extended load. The could not extend the load without any approval. Under such circumstances of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed. It formalities for extended load, the plaintiff use extended load until and unless there was approval in black and white from the Board. Hence, the findings of learned Courts below The further contention raised is that the their jurisdiction and the plaint should have been returned for arbitration. s also urged that even on merit, the findings of the issues should have been in favour of appellant-Board have acted in most arbitrary manner. Lastly, it is also submitted that on the augmentation of Electricity Act, 2003, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. On the basis of these grounds, it is prayed that j Courts below be reversed and the suit of the plaintiff costs throughout. Learned counsel for the respondent hand, supported the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. It was submitted that the plaintiff-company had duly complied with all requisite formalities for extension of load, including submission of test report and de - surmises and, hence, liable to be set aside by this Court. It was further argued that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on records of the case. It is ll proved on record of the case that no communication or letter from the laintiff-company for the extension of the load. All the formalities may have been completed by the plaintiff-company the absence of grant of approval by the Board, it cannot be presumed that there was sanction of extended load. The plaintiff-company itself could not extend the load without any approval. Under such circumstances, the suit It is next contended that by merely plaintiff-company was not entitled to use extended load until and unless there was approval in black and white from the below on issue No.1 are liable to be that the learned Courts below wrongly urisdiction and the plaint should have been returned for arbitration. the findings of the learned Courts below on all Board, but the learned Courts below Lastly, it is also submitted that on the Electricity Act, 2003, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. judgments and decrees passed by the plaintiff-company be dismissed with Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff/company, on the other hand, supported the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. It was company had duly complied with all requisite load, including submission of test report and deposit of It was further argued that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on records of the case. It is ll proved on record of the case that no communication or letter from the ion of the company for not be company itself the suit merely company was not entitled to use extended load until and unless there was approval in black and white from the on issue No.1 are liable to be Courts below wrongly urisdiction and the plaint should have been returned for arbitration. Courts below on all Courts below Lastly, it is also submitted that on the Electricity Act, 2003, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. udgments and decrees passed by the be dismissed with , on the other hand, supported the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. It was company had duly complied with all requisite posit of PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.4015 of 2000 (O&M) security amount of Rs. that the appellant KW to 68.436 KW by is was contended that despite the above compliance and acknowledgment, the officials of the appellant issued memo No. urged that the said memo was wholly illegal, arbitrary, unfounded and passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff submitted that even the evidence of DW1 D.S. Yadav, an official of the appella Board, clearly established that no notice or report was ever issued or supplied to the plaintiff-company prior to the issuance of the impugned memo. Thus, principles of natural justice were grossly violated. plaintiff-company never consumed electricity beyond the sanctioned load of 68.436 KW, which stood duly sanctioned and extended by the appellant penalty imposed on the alleged unauthorized load was therefore without any legal foundation. Learned counsel first Appellate Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, had rightly held the impugned memo Ex.P4 dated 7.10.1991 to be illegal, null and void, and as such, no ground for interfere 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and have gone through the record of the Courts below with 11. It is had applied for extension of load and had duly deposited the requisite security amount of Rs. 9,100/ itself thereafter issued RSA No.4015 of 2000 (O&M) -5- security amount of Rs.9100/- vide receipt dated 1.3.1990. It that the appellant-Board itself acknowledged the extension of load from 19.732 KW to 68.436 KW by issuance of Service Job Order No. was contended that despite the above compliance and acknowledgment, the officials of the appellant-Board arbitrarily conducted a raid o issued memo No.2914 dated 7.10.1991, imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 urged that the said memo was wholly illegal, arbitrary, unfounded and passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff submitted that even the evidence of DW1 D.S. Yadav, an official of the appella Board, clearly established that no notice or report was ever issued or supplied to company prior to the issuance of the impugned memo. Thus, principles of natural justice were grossly violated. any never consumed electricity beyond the sanctioned load of 68.436 KW, which stood duly sanctioned and extended by the appellant penalty imposed on the alleged unauthorized load was therefore without any legal Learned counsel lastly argued that both the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, had rightly held the impugned memo Ex.P4 dated 7.10.1991 to be illegal, null and void, and as such, no ground for interference by this Court was made out. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and have gone through the record of the Courts below with It is admitted factual position on record that the plaintiff had applied for extension of load and had duly deposited the requisite security Rs. 9,100/- vide receipt dated 1.3.1990 (Ex. P1) itself thereafter issued Service Job Order No. 2219 dated 22.8.1990 (Ex. P2) - vide receipt dated 1.3.1990. It is further pointed out Board itself acknowledged the extension of load from 19.732 ce Job Order No.2219 dated 22.8.1990. was contended that despite the above compliance and acknowledgment, the Board arbitrarily conducted a raid on 21.9.1991 and 2914 dated 7.10.1991, imposing a penalty of Rs. 53,720/-. It was urged that the said memo was wholly illegal, arbitrary, unfounded and passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff-company. It is further submitted that even the evidence of DW1 D.S. Yadav, an official of the appella Board, clearly established that no notice or report was ever issued or supplied to company prior to the issuance of the impugned memo. Thus, principles of natural justice were grossly violated. It was also contended that the any never consumed electricity beyond the sanctioned load of 68.436 KW, which stood duly sanctioned and extended by the appellant-Board itself. The penalty imposed on the alleged unauthorized load was therefore without any legal lastly argued that both the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, had rightly held the impugned memo Ex.P4 dated 7.10.1991 to be illegal, null and void, nce by this Court was made out. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and have gone through the record of the Courts below with their able assistance. admitted factual position on record that the plaintiff-company had applied for extension of load and had duly deposited the requisite security vide receipt dated 1.3.1990 (Ex. P1). The appellant-Board Job Order No. 2219 dated 22.8.1990 (Ex. P2) further pointed out Board itself acknowledged the extension of load from 19.732 2219 dated 22.8.1990. It was contended that despite the above compliance and acknowledgment, the n 21.9.1991 and . It was urged that the said memo was wholly illegal, arbitrary, unfounded and passed further submitted that even the evidence of DW1 D.S. Yadav, an official of the appellant- Board, clearly established that no notice or report was ever issued or supplied to company prior to the issuance of the impugned memo. Thus, It was also contended that the any never consumed electricity beyond the sanctioned load of 68.436 Board itself. The penalty imposed on the alleged unauthorized load was therefore without any legal lastly argued that both the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, had rightly held the impugned memo Ex.P4 dated 7.10.1991 to be illegal, null and void, I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and have company had applied for extension of load and had duly deposited the requisite security Board Job Order No. 2219 dated 22.8.1990 (Ex. P2), PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.4015 of 2000 (O&M) whereby the sanctioned load of the plaintiff KW to 68.436 KW evidence but also from the testimony of appellant-Board “DW1 has stated in his cross to check the papers i.e. application to the defendants for extension of load and de 9100/ 11A. Therefore any administrative lapse or delay in formal communication on the part of the defendants. Once the sanction stood granted by the issuance of the Service Job Order, the argumen conveyed in “black and white” is wholly untenable. The sanction emanated from the Board itself and not from the consumer. The consumer was, therefore, legally entitled to consume the extended load. It is settled law that an admi or failure of communication by the authority cannot be used as a ground to penalize a consumer, who has complied with all statutory requirements. The imposition of penalty vide memo dated 7.10.1991 (Ex. P4) notice or hearing to the plaintiff. Both the action is violative of the principles of reiterated that electricity authorities cannot, on their own motion ( impose penalties without affording the consumer an adequate opportunity of hearing. The impugned penalty memo thus stands vitiated. No perversity, illegality, or misreading of evidence has been pointed out by the appellant. plea of the appellant that RSA No.4015 of 2000 (O&M) -6- whereby the sanctioned load of the plaintiff-company was increased from KW to 68.436 KW. This fact stands established not only from the documentary evidence but also from the testimony of DW1, Shri D.S. Y itself, who candidly admitted in his cross “DW1 has stated in his cross-examination that he has not bothered to check the papers i.e. application to the defendants for extension of load and depositing the requisite security fees amounting to Rs. 9100/- vide Ex. PW2/A as per requirement of the defendants herefore, the plaintiff-company cannot be faulted or penalized for any administrative lapse or delay in formal communication on the part of the Once the sanction stood granted by the issuance of the Service Job Order, the argumen conveyed in “black and white” is wholly untenable. The sanction emanated from the Board itself and not from the consumer. The consumer was, therefore, legally entitled to consume the extended load. It is settled law that an admi or failure of communication by the authority cannot be used as a ground to penalize who has complied with all statutory requirements. The imposition of memo dated 7.10.1991 (Ex. P4) notice or hearing to the plaintiff. Both the learned Courts below action is violative of the principles of natural justice reiterated that electricity authorities cannot, on their own motion ( impose penalties without affording the consumer an adequate opportunity of The impugned penalty memo thus stands vitiated. No perversity, illegality, or misreading of evidence has been pointed out by the appellant. plea of the appellant that the dispute ought to have been referred to arbitration is - company was increased from 19.732 . This fact stands established not only from the documentary DW1, Shri D.S. Yadav, an official of the , who candidly admitted in his cross-examination as under: examination that he has not bothered to check the papers i.e. application to the defendants for extension of positing the requisite security fees amounting to Rs. vide Ex. PW2/A as per requirement of the defendants.” company cannot be faulted or penalized for any administrative lapse or delay in formal communication on the part of the Once the sanction stood granted by the appellant-Board through issuance of the Service Job Order, the argument that the approval was not conveyed in “black and white” is wholly untenable. The sanction emanated from the Board itself and not from the consumer. The consumer was, therefore, legally entitled to consume the extended load. It is settled law that an administrative delay or failure of communication by the authority cannot be used as a ground to penalize who has complied with all statutory requirements. The imposition of was effected without affording a learned Courts below have held that such natural justice. It has been consistently reiterated that electricity authorities cannot, on their own motion (sua sponte impose penalties without affording the consumer an adequate opportunity of The impugned penalty memo thus stands vitiated. No perversity, illegality, or misreading of evidence has been pointed out by the appellant. the dispute ought to have been referred to arbitration is 19.732 . This fact stands established not only from the documentary , an official of the as under:- examination that he has not bothered to check the papers i.e. application to the defendants for extension of positing the requisite security fees amounting to Rs. company cannot be faulted or penalized for any administrative lapse or delay in formal communication on the part of the Board through t that the approval was not conveyed in “black and white” is wholly untenable. The sanction emanated from the Board itself and not from the consumer. The consumer was, therefore, legally nistrative delay or failure of communication by the authority cannot be used as a ground to penalize who has complied with all statutory requirements. The imposition of was effected without affording any have held that such It has been consistently sponte), impose penalties without affording the consumer an adequate opportunity of The impugned penalty memo thus stands vitiated. No perversity, The the dispute ought to have been referred to arbitration is PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.4015 of 2000 (O&M) equally untenable. The Courts below rightly rejected this plea as the arbitration clause could not override statutory obligations of the Board, and once the validity of the penalty memo was in quest argument of learned counsel for the Electricity Act, 2003, no merit, as the future events (prospective operation), not to pas unless and until specifically Electricity Act, 2003 talks about the s mentioned therein that this Act shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification, appoint. As per notification No. dated 10.06.2003, date for commencement of the Act was fixed as 10.06.2003, meaning thereby, the Electricity Act, 2003 has prospective effect. The suit was filed in the year 1997 and even the second appeal before this Court is of the year 2000, thus, the Civ Court was well within its jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question. 12. In view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Chandrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir (2019) 17 SCC 71 Singh (dead) through LRs and others, framed in second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by provisions of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. RSA No.4015 of 2000 (O&M) -7- equally untenable. The Courts below rightly rejected this plea as the arbitration clause could not override statutory obligations of the Board, and once the validity of the penalty memo was in question, civil jurisdiction was not ou argument of learned counsel for the appellant Electricity Act, 2003, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is exclusively barred has no merit, as the assumption for any new law or s future events (prospective operation), not to pas unless and until specifically stated that it is retrospective. Electricity Act, 2003 talks about the short title, extent and therein that this Act shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification, appoint. As per notification No. dated 10.06.2003, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, S date for commencement of the Act was fixed as 10.06.2003, meaning thereby, the Electricity Act, 2003 has prospective effect. The suit was filed in the year 1997 and even the second appeal before this Court is of the year 2000, thus, the Civ Court was well within its jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question. In view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Chandrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and others (2019) 17 SCC 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurcharan Singh (dead) through LRs and others, questions of law are not required to be framed in second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by provisions of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, - equally untenable. The Courts below rightly rejected this plea as the arbitration clause could not override statutory obligations of the Board, and once the validity ion, civil jurisdiction was not ousted. appellant-Board that as per provisions of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is exclusively barred has assumption for any new law or statute is that it applies only to future events (prospective operation), not to past events (retrospective effect) it is retrospective. Section 1 of the hort title, extent and commencement and it is therein that this Act shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification, appoint. As per notification No.S.O.669(E) India, Extraordinary, Part II, Sec. 3(ii), the appointed date for commencement of the Act was fixed as 10.06.2003, meaning thereby, the Electricity Act, 2003 has prospective effect. The suit was filed in the year 1997 and even the second appeal before this Court is of the year 2000, thus, the Civ Court was well within its jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question. In view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Chandrika Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and others Gurbachan Singh (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurcharan questions of law are not required to be framed in second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by provisions of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, equally untenable. The Courts below rightly rejected this plea as the arbitration clause could not override statutory obligations of the Board, and once the validity The Board that as per provisions of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is exclusively barred has tatute is that it applies only to t events (retrospective effect) Section 1 of the and it is therein that this Act shall come into force on such date as the Central S.O.669(E) the appointed date for commencement of the Act was fixed as 10.06.2003, meaning thereby, the Electricity Act, 2003 has prospective effect. The suit was filed in the year 1997 and even the second appeal before this Court is of the year 2000, thus, the Civil In view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Chandrika Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and others Gurbachan Singh (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurcharan questions of law are not required to be framed in second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by provisions of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.4015 of 2000 (O&M) 13. As an upshot of above discussion, this Court finds no illegality and perversity in the concurrent finding of fact rendered by both the Courts below and the same is uph 14. Misc. application(s) pending, if any, also stand disposed of. September 04, 2025 Pankaj* RSA No.4015 of 2000 (O&M) -8- As an upshot of above discussion, this Court finds no illegality and perversity in the concurrent finding of fact rendered by both the Courts below and is upheld. The regular second appeal Misc. application(s) pending, if any, also stand disposed of. (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL , 2025 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable - As an upshot of above discussion, this Court finds no illegality and perversity in the concurrent finding of fact rendered by both the Courts below and is dismissed. Misc. application(s) pending, if any, also stand disposed of. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No. : Yes/No As an upshot of above discussion, this Court finds no illegality and perversity in the concurrent finding of fact rendered by both the Courts below and AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh