Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 704 of 1974, decided on 9th October 1975.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in R. S. A. No. 222 of 1974).
Contract Act (IX of 1872)‑
‑ ‑ S. 37‑Parties to contract, obligation of‑Terms of agreement between parties reserving power to respondent to increase rates for supply of energy unilaterally‑Contention that increase in rates being unconscionable and discriminatory was un‑enforceable and petitioner was liable to pay on rates originally stipulated, held, rightly rejected by lower Court.
Karachi Gas Company v. Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd.
P L D 1975 S C 193 ref.
Manzoor Hussain Sial, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Salah‑ud -Din, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 9th October 1975.
MUHAMMAD GUL, J.
‑This petition is from the order of the Lahore High Court dated 9‑7‑1974, dismissing in limine Regular Second Appeal by the petitioner herein, in a dispute between him and WAPDA, respondent with regard to the rates of electricity charged by the latter.
The petitioner has installed a tubewell for the irrigation of land. The tubewell is worked by an electric motor which operates on the electric energy supplied by the respondents. It appears that under the terms of agreement between the parties, the petitioner originally undertook to pay the respondent a fixed charge of Rs. 8 per month per K. W. and in addition to a charge of paisas 0‑04 per unit of the electricity consumed. However, under the terms of the agreement, the respondent reserved to itself the right to vary unilaterally the rates for the supply of electric energy to the petitioner. Pursuant to this reservation, the respondent increased the rate of electricity actually consumed to paisas 0‑06 per unit over and in addition to the minimum monthly charge.
The petitioner aggrieved by unilateral increase in the charges filed a suit for a declaration that the increase in the charge was unreasonable and unconscionable and that therefore the petitioner was liable to pay for the electricity on the basis of the rates originally stipulated. The suit was, however, dismissed by the learned trial Judge. Appeal taken by the petitioner to the District Judge and the High Court have also failed.
Petitioner's learned counsel contended that the increase in the rate oil electricity by the respondent was unconscionable and discriminatory and therefore was unforceable and the petitioner was liable to pay for the electricity consumed on the rates originally stipulated. Learned counsel however, conceded that under the terms of the agreement, power was reserved to the respondent to increase unilaterally the rates. The being so the petitioner's suit and appeals were rightly dismissed. The matter is also Included by a recent judgment of this Court in Karachi Gas Company v. Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd (PLD1975SC193)
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer