Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against Injunction in Electricity Transmission Line Dispute — Balance of Convenience Favours Completion of Line Subject to Compensation. The Court held that where the District Magistrate has granted permission under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and 80% of the work is complete, the balance of convenience does not justify an interim injunction.

  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The first respondent, IVP Limited, owned non-agricultural land in villages Vadavali and Mohane. It filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDC) and its contractors were excavating its land for construction of electricity transmission towers without prior approval. The appellant, Century Rayon Limited, a chemical manufacturing company with a plant at Mohane, had applied to MSEDC on 2 May 2016 for Line In Line Out (LILO) on a 100 KV line. Sanction was granted by Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd (MSETCL) on 24 May 2017, subject to the appellant sorting out right-of-way issues at its cost. The trial court and first appellate court granted a temporary injunction restraining the appellant and MSEDC from making holes for erecting poles on the suit lands without following due process. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition on 9 January 2019, affirming the injunction. The Supreme Court noted that after the first appellate court's interim order on 25 April 2018, the appellant had initiated proceedings before the District Magistrate, Thane, who on 28 August 2018 granted permission for erection of towers and setting up of the transmission line subject to payment of compensation under Section 16(1) to 16(4) read with Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The Court observed that the electricity transmission towers had already been constructed on the respondent's land, and 80% of the work was complete. The balance of convenience did not justify continuing the injunction. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders, and permitted the appellant and MSEDC to proceed with the work subject to the condition that they pay compensation as determined by the District Magistrate or District Judge under the Telegraph Act. The civil suit was left to be decided on merits.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Balance of Convenience - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - The Court held that where the District Magistrate has granted permission under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and 80% of the transmission line work is already complete, the balance of convenience does not justify continuing an interim injunction restraining the erection of towers. The appellant was allowed to proceed subject to payment of compensation as determined. (Paras 5-7)

B) Electricity Law - Transmission Lines - Powers of Telegraph Authority - Section 164 of Electricity Act, 2003 read with Sections 10 and 16 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 - The appropriate Government may confer powers of telegraph authority on licensees for placing electric lines. The District Magistrate may permit exercise of such powers upon resistance or obstruction, and compensation disputes are to be determined by the District Judge. (Paras 7-8)

C) Property Law - Compensation for Damage - Section 10(d) and Section 16 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 - The telegraph authority must do as little damage as possible and pay full compensation to all interested persons. In case of dispute as to sufficiency of compensation, the District Judge determines the amount. (Paras 7-8)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the interim injunction restraining the appellant from erecting electricity transmission towers on the respondent's land should be sustained when the District Magistrate has granted permission and 80% of the work is complete.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court, trial court, and first appellate court, and permitted the appellant and MSEDC to proceed with the work of erecting the transmission line subject to the condition that they pay compensation to the first respondent as determined under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The civil suit was left to be decided on merits.

Law Points

  • Balance of convenience
  • Interim injunction
  • Power of telegraph authority under Indian Telegraph Act
  • 1885
  • Compensation under Section 10(d) and Section 16 of Indian Telegraph Act
  • Section 164 of Electricity Act
  • 2003
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (SC) (11) 9

Civil Appeal No. 9063 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6243 of 2019)

2019-01-09

Sanjiv Khanna

Century Rayon Limited

IVP Limited and Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against an interim injunction order restraining the appellant from erecting electricity transmission towers on the respondent's land.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought setting aside of the injunction order to allow completion of the transmission line.

Filing Reason

The first respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that MSEDC and its contractors were excavating its land without prior approval for construction of electricity transmission towers.

Previous Decisions

The trial court and first appellate court granted a temporary injunction restraining the appellant and MSEDC from making holes for erecting poles on the suit lands without following due process. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition on 9 January 2019, affirming the injunction.

Issues

Whether the interim injunction should be sustained when the District Magistrate has granted permission under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and 80% of the work is complete. Whether the balance of convenience justifies continuing the injunction.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the District Magistrate had granted permission for erection of towers and 80% of the work was complete, so the balance of convenience favored allowing the work to proceed. The first respondent argued that the appellant had not followed due process and the injunction should be maintained.

Ratio Decidendi

Where the District Magistrate has granted permission under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for erection of electricity transmission towers and the majority of the work is complete, the balance of convenience does not justify continuing an interim injunction restraining the work. The party may proceed subject to payment of compensation as determined under the Act.

Judgment Excerpts

Clearly, therefore, the balance of convenience does not justify passing of an interim injunction order in favour of the first respondent. It is also accepted that the District Magistrate, Thane vide order dated 28th August 2018 has granted the necessary permission for erection of the towers and setting up of the transmission line on the land of the first respondent.

Procedural History

The first respondent filed a civil suit for permanent injunction. The trial court granted a temporary injunction. The first appellate court affirmed. The appellant filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 9 January 2019. The appellant then filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court, which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 9063 of 2019.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Telegraph Act, 1885: 10, 16
  • Electricity Act, 2003: 164
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Return of Plaint in Commercial Dispute Case — Immovable Property Not Used Exclusively in Trade or Commerce. Agreement to Sell and Mortgage Deed Registration Dispute Falls Outside Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as Land Was Not Ple...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against Injunction in Electricity Transmission Line Dispute — Balance of Convenience Favours Completion of Line Subject to Compensation. The Court held that where the District Magistrate has granted permission under Sect...