| Case ID |
09a6047e-86a0-4225-8904-f32626591fe5 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
HCA No. 97/2012 |
| Decision Date |
Aug 29, 2016 |
| Hearing Date |
Aug 29, 2016 |
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court dismissed the intra-court appeal filed by Karachi Electric Supply Company (KESC) against the interim order of a Single Judge, which directed the restoration of electricity supply to Soorty Enterprises (PVT.) Ltd. The Court found that the Single Judge had exercised discretion correctly and that there was no justification for the appellate court to interfere. The interim order, which required KESC to restore electricity, was deemed valid, and the appellate court emphasized that interim orders merge into final orders. The ruling reiterated the importance of adhering to procedural requirements, particularly the timely initiation of determinations regarding electricity supply. |
| Summary |
The case revolves around the intra-court appeal filed by Karachi Electric Supply Company (KESC) against an interim order issued by a Single Judge of the Sindh High Court. The Single Judge had ordered KESC to restore electricity supply to Soorty Enterprises (PVT.) Ltd. after it failed to provide a steady power supply to the respondent's factories. The court found that KESC did not initiate the necessary determination process within the prescribed timeframe, leading to the conclusion that the interim order should remain in effect. The decision highlights the significance of compliance with procedural laws and the discretion exercised by the courts in granting interim relief. This case is pivotal for understanding the intersection of utility regulations and consumer rights, particularly in the context of electricity supply disputes. The ruling reinforces the obligation of utility companies to follow due process before disconnecting services and underscores the judiciary's role in protecting consumer interests. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY,
SOORTY ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD.
|
| Judges |
AHMED ALI M. SHEIKH, JUSTICE,
SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, JUSTICE
|
| Lawyers |
Abid S. Zuberi,
Arshad Tayebaly
|
| Petitioners |
KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY THROUGH AUTHORIZED OFFICER
|
| Respondents |
SOORTY ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ANOTHER
|
| Citations |
2016 SLD 3631,
2016 MLD 1577
|
| Other Citations |
Roshan Din v. S.M. Badaruddin PLD 1969 Kar. 546,
C. Kamatchi Ammal v. Kattabomman Transport Corpn. Ltd. AIR 1987 Madras 173,
Mrs. Kavita Trehan and another v. Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd. AIR 1995 Supreme Court (Delhi) 441,
Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. v. Machado Brothers and others Civil Appeals Nos. 1855-1856/2004 AIR 2004 SC 2093,
State of Assam v. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanshta AIR 2009 SC 2249,
Ali Muhammad Brohi v. Haji Muhammad Hashim PLD 1983 Kar. 527,
Abdul Qayyum and another v. Niaz Muhammad and another 1992 SCMR 613,
Kashif Anwar v. Agha Khan University 2006 CLC Kar. 1621,
Glaxo Laboratories Limited v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others 1992 PTD 932,
Prem Chandra Agarwal and another v. U.P. Financial Corp. and others 2009 3 AWC (Supp.) 2578
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877),
Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972)
|
| Sections |
104,
O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2,
42,
54,
3
|