R. P. AWASTHY, J. ( 1 ) MADHYA Prades Electricity Board (Board in short) has file the present appeal against the order date 6-6-95 passed by First Additional Distric Judge, Murwara in a proceeding which has either been registered as Misc. Judicial Case or Civil Suit No. 33/95 by virtue of which the recovery of an amount of Rs. 55,45,891/- has been stayed subject to the condition: (1) That the respondent shall pay Rs. 10 lacks in monthly instalments of 2,50,000/- from the month of June, 1995 to the month September, 1995; (2) That the respondent of non-applicant/defendant shall furnish security of Rs. 50 lacs to the effect that the non-applicant/defendant shall pay the remaining amount of the bill of recovery of electricity charges from defendant. The Board has also filed revision against the order passed on 17-7-95 by virtue of which the Court has appointed arbitrators to adjudicate upon the dispute regarding the quantum and amount of the electric charges recoverable from the non-applicant. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the respondent is a consumer of the Board and he entered in an agreement at Jabalpur with the Board for supply of electricity to a small scale unit established by the respondent in Panna District. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT/applicant filed a petition on 30-5-95 in the Court of A. D. J. posted at Katni. to the effect that the said small scale unit at Panna was started by the respondent on the assurance given by the Government that since the District Panna was declared as no industrial zone, concession would be given to the respondent in the matter of the charges recoverable for electric consumption of the said unit and sales tax etc. It has further been contended by the respondent that it was liable to pay electricity, duty at the rate of 3 paise per unit, but it was charged at the rate of O. 9 paise per unit from July, 88 to November, 88 and O. 12 paise per unit from December, 88 onwards. ( 4 ) THE petitioner further submitted in the said petition that the electricity meter installed in the said small scale unit was defective and as such was showing and recording excessive consumption, regarding which the respondent had lodged complaints on 4-8-88, 1-12-88, 28-9-91, 12-12-91, 18-1-94 and 15-4-94. ( 4 ) THE petitioner further submitted in the said petition that the electricity meter installed in the said small scale unit was defective and as such was showing and recording excessive consumption, regarding which the respondent had lodged complaints on 4-8-88, 1-12-88, 28-9-91, 12-12-91, 18-1-94 and 15-4-94. It was also alleged in the said petition that the supply of electricity was irregular and tripping use to take place which was contrary to the assurance given by the Board as well as the State of Madhya Pradesh. ( 5 ) ON account of the said facts a dispute arose regarding the supply of electricity and the electricity meter being defective. The same was not attended by the Divisional Engineer, Katni which resulted in to loss of production to the said small scale unit for which the Board is liable to pay. ( 6 ) THE respondent further contended that the Board intimated the respondent that from 28-10-91, the said small scale unit should not consume electricity from 4. 00 p. m. to 1o. 00 p. m. It further caused loss of production in the said unit. On 4-12-93 a revised bill was sent whereby excessive amount was charged and in spite of the objection dated 18-12-93 the same was not decided and the supply was disconnected in the month of December, 1994. The respondent was served with the notice dated 28-11-94 to pay a sum of Rs. 81,80891/ - and after adjusting a sum of Rs. 26,35,000/- a sum of Rs. 55,45,891/- was found due against the respondent. The respondent submitted that since it was pointed out that the electric meter installed in the said small scale unit was defective, the matter should have been referred to the Electrical Inspector under Section 26 of the Electricity Act, which the non-applicant did not do. It was further contended that as per Clause 37 of the agreement arbitrators should have been appointed by the parties to the said agreement. With these averments it was prayed that arbitrators be appointed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. ( 7 ) ALONGWITH the said petition filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act an application under Section 41 of the said Act read with O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2, Cr. P. C. was also filed. With these averments it was prayed that arbitrators be appointed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. ( 7 ) ALONGWITH the said petition filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act an application under Section 41 of the said Act read with O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2, Cr. P. C. was also filed. In which it was mentioned that the Board has drawn the proceedings under the Dues Recovery Act and for recovering the said amount, the property belonging to the respondent has been attached by the Tahsildar, which are likely to be sold. The said sale will cause irreparable injury to the respondent petitioner and hence the recovery proceedings may be stayed. ( 8 ) ON notice being served on the Board, it was pointed out by filing reply to the effect that, the demand was raised as per meter reading on the basis of consumption recorded in the said small scale unit. Under the provision contained in Section 5 of the Dues Recovery Act, the bill could not be challenged in the Civil Court, unless, the amount demanded by the Board was deposited. Since the demand was raised on the basis of the bills already submitted to the respondent, there was no question of giving the details of the consumption and the period for which the demand was being made. Under Clause 37 of the agreement no reference could be made to the arbitrator and that there was no defect in the matter. The respondent was duly given concession for the period for which. he was entitled in the electricity charges. The application for arbitration was not maintainable. The Court had no jurisdiction to try the case. ( 9 ) AFTER hearing arguments of the parties to the case, the learned Additional District Judge, Katni passed the impugned order. After granting stay of the recovery, subject to the condition referred above, the learned Judge granted time to the parties to the case to give the names of the arbitrators. When the Board did not propose the name of any arbitrator the Court concerned appointed Superintendent Engineer, M. P. E. B. , Shri J. P. Tiwari as an arbitrator in the case. Present non-applicant Daltek Carbide Chemicals had proposed the name of Shri I. D. Dingra as one of the two arbitrators and Shri Dingra was also appointed as the arbitrator in the case. Present non-applicant Daltek Carbide Chemicals had proposed the name of Shri I. D. Dingra as one of the two arbitrators and Shri Dingra was also appointed as the arbitrator in the case. ( 10 ) IT has been argued for the Board that as per Clause 37 of the agreement, the dispute regarding recovery of charges for energy consumed and any other charges were specifically excluded from the scope of the arbitration Clause 37 of the agreement, and, hence no application under Section. 20 of the Act was maintainable. Further the agreement was entered into between the parties to the case at Jabalpur. As such a part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court at Jabalpur. As per Clause 42 of the agreement it was agreed between the parties that the dispute or the claims if any out of or in spite of the contract were to be settled at Jabalpur and were triable only in the competent Court situated at Jabalpur. Therefore, the Court at Katni had no jurisdiction to try the petition filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The demand was made for the bills from July, 94 to October, 94 under Section 5 of the Recovery Act. No proceedings before the Civil Court was maintainable unless the amount was deposited by the respondent and hence no stay could have been granted regarding the money for which the demand was made. No prima facie cases existed in favour of the petitioner/respondent. He was liable to pay the electric charges for the electricity consumed by the said unit. No irreparable injury was going to be caused to the respondent/petitioner and the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to direct the Board to propose Arbitrator. ( 11 ) IN reply it has been submitted that the Court of Additional District Judge, Katni is a Court under the Principal Civil Court of District Jabalpur. Under the provisions contained in Civil Court Act read with Civil Court Rules, it is a Court in the Civil District of Jabalpur. The agreement was entered into in the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Civil Court of Jabalpur. There could be no agreement to file a case before a particular Court or Judge. Under the provisions contained in Civil Court Act read with Civil Court Rules, it is a Court in the Civil District of Jabalpur. The agreement was entered into in the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Civil Court of Jabalpur. There could be no agreement to file a case before a particular Court or Judge. Therefore, the institution of the case before the Court of Additional District Judge, Katni, to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur was and is within the perview of Clause 42 of the relevant agreement. As the matter did not relate to defective meter only and there was a composite dispute regarding several aspects which were not covered by sub-section (6) of Sec. 26, the matter was not referable to a competent authority under the Electricity Duty Act. Therefore, since a composite dispute regarding charge of electricity duty, irregular supply of power, supplementary bill being sent without referring the matter to the competent authority were also, involved, apart from the meter being defective, the matter was referable to the Arbitrators, in view of Arbitration Clause 37 of the Agreement. ( 12 ) REGARDING recovery proceedings being stayed, it has to be seen that the Court concerned ordered payment of Rs. 10 lacs within four months and security has been ordered to be furnished by the non-applicant. The arbitration has been ordered to be concluded by 30th of September, 1995. Therefore, the order is fair and just. As the Board is a collecting agency of the electricity duty, the said defect in the levied charge of the electricity duty has to be pointed out to the Board. No purpose would be served by selling the said unit as M. P. Financial Corporation and State Bank of Indore have first and second charge on the said unit. Only after satisfaction of the debts of the said Financial Corporation and Bank, the third charge can be enforced by the Board. Therefore, no purpose would be served in enforcing the recovery notice because the said notice would not serve the purpose for which it is issued. ( 13 ) MOREOVER, the respondent is willing to pay the amount after its adjudication by the arbitrator. Proper persons have been appointed as arbitrators. The arbitration proceedings have to be completed by 30-9-95. The respondent/non-applicant has deposited the money as was directed by the Court. ( 13 ) MOREOVER, the respondent is willing to pay the amount after its adjudication by the arbitrator. Proper persons have been appointed as arbitrators. The arbitration proceedings have to be completed by 30-9-95. The respondent/non-applicant has deposited the money as was directed by the Court. Therefore, no purpose would be served by non-suiting the non-applicant. Since the complaints were pending with the M. P. E. B. and no reply was sent rejecting the same, the respondent felt hopeful about adjudication of the complaints. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is want of bona fides on the part of the respondent in applying for appointment of arbitrators under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act only when the property was attached and was likely to be sold for recovery of the demand made by the Board. No estoppel can be claimed against filing of the proceedings, before a Court of law under the Arbitration Act. ( 14 ) REGARDING the territorial jurisdiction, it has further to be seen that electric bills were prepared at Katni and were being paid at Katni. The Head Office of the company is at Katni and the Office of Divisional Engineer concerned of the Board is also at Katni. Therefore, substantial part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Court at Katni. For all practical purposes the Court at Katni was a part of the Principal Civil Court at Jabalpur. It has also to be seen that the action of the Board amounts to liquidating an already sick unit started in a no industrial zone in the backward district of Panna, where various reliefs and concessions including reduction of levy of electricity duty were assured and made admissible. There was no complaint of the Board regarding the temporing of electrical of energy apparatus by the company or its employees at any point of time. Barring this demand the previous demands had been duly paid. This demand also could not be paid as outstanding disputes had not been settled. The factory is lying closed since October, 1994. No public purpose would be served by accepting the plea of the Board. ( 15 ) AT the very outset, it may be mentioned that the present matter has to be decided strictly in accordance with law keeping aside the sentiments, if any, involved in the case or the sentimental appeal being made in the case. No public purpose would be served by accepting the plea of the Board. ( 15 ) AT the very outset, it may be mentioned that the present matter has to be decided strictly in accordance with law keeping aside the sentiments, if any, involved in the case or the sentimental appeal being made in the case. Mainly three points have to be considered in the present petition. "whether the arbitration Clause 37 could be invoked in the present case and arbitrators could be appointed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. Secondly, whether the Court at Katni had territorial jurisdiction and thirdly, whether the three criteria for issuing temporary injunctions were present in the case. " ( 16 ) CLAUSE 37 of the Agreement reads as below:-"in the event of any dispute of difference arising between the Consumer and the Board as regards the interpretation of this Agreement or any other matter arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, except a dispute regarding recovery of charges for energy consumed and any other charges such as minimum charges, miscellaneous and other charges or a dispute regarding any matter for which a method of determination is prescribed in the Acts, Rules, Regulations and conditions of supply mentioned in clause 39 here of such dispute of difference shall be referred to the arbitration of two arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party hereto, and an umpire to be appointed by the arbitrators before entering upon the reference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " (emphasis supplied) ( 17 ) THEREFORE, a dispute regarding recovery of charges for energy consumed at any other charges such as minimum charges miscellaneous and other charges or a dispute regarding any matter for which a method of determination is prescribed in the Acts, Rules, Regulations. and Conditions of supply mentioned in clause 39, are specifically excluded. Now the present dispute related to the bill pertaining to the charges for electricity consumed by the small scale unit being operated by the non-applicant. ( 18 ) REGARDING contention that the dispute was composite dispute, it has to be seen that the charges of the electricity duty was enhanced by the State Government itself and the Board was merely a collecting agency. ( 18 ) REGARDING contention that the dispute was composite dispute, it has to be seen that the charges of the electricity duty was enhanced by the State Government itself and the Board was merely a collecting agency. Consequently, if there was any dispute pertaining to electricity duty, the said dispute was between the present non-applicant and the State, and, the Board was not concerned with the said dispute. ( 19 ) IN view of Clause 12 (A) and (B), the present petitioner had agreed to the supply of electricity under the agreement being curtailed, staggered or cut off altogether by the Board, if the power position or any other emergency in the power system warranted such a course of action. It had not been alleged in the petition filed under Section 20 of the Act that the supply of electricity was deliberately curtailed by the Board without any reason. The respondent himself had agreed that under the circumstances detailed in Clause 12 of the agreement, the electricity supply could be curtailed. Therefore, there could be no dispute unless, it was asserted that the said conditions did not prevail and even in absence of the enumerated situation or the power position, electricity was deliberately curtailed, may be, with some ulterior motive. Therefore, in absence of such assertion or pleading no dispute could be raised on the basis of this ground also. ( 20 ) REGARDING the meters being defective, the matter was clearly referable to the Electricity Inspector and any reference to arbitration under Clause 37 of the agreement was specifically excluded. Therefore, firstly, it is held that the matter was not referable to the arbitrators, it being specifically excluded from any reference being made to the arbitrators regarding such a dispute. It is further held that it was not a composite dispute but a dispute regarding the meters being defective only and other two alleged disputes were not infact any disputes between the Board and the respondent. ( 21 ) IT has also to be seen that as per Clause 42, the disputes could be triable only in any competent Court situated at Jabalpur. The Court of Additional District Judge, Katni is no doubt situated within the Civil District of Jabalpur. Yet, the said Court situated at Katni cannot be said to be a Court situated at Jabalpur. The Court of Additional District Judge, Katni is no doubt situated within the Civil District of Jabalpur. Yet, the said Court situated at Katni cannot be said to be a Court situated at Jabalpur. It has not been disputed that the Court situated at Jabalpur had also jurisdiction to try any dispute between the Board and the respondent. Consequently, in view of the pronouncements of the Apex Court reported in Hakam Singh v. M/s. Gammon Indialimited, AIR 1971 SC 740 and A. B. C. Laminart Pvt. Limited v. A. P. Agencies, Salem, AIR 1989 SC 1239 it is held that the competent Court at Jabalpur only had jurisdiction to try the suit and the Court at Katni had no jurisdiction to try the said suit. ( 22 ) IT has to be seen that under Section 5 of the Recovery of M. P. Government Electrical Undertakings (Dues Recovery) Act, 1961, no proceedings before the Civil Court were maintainable unless the amount sought to be recovered was deposited and no stay could have been granted regarding the recovery of the amount for which the demand was made. As the demand pertained to the charges of the electricity consumed by the small scale unit belonging to the respondent, there was specific prohibition under the Act, which was for the time being in force, to the effect that recovery of such amount could not have had stayed unless the said amount was deposited in the Court. Therefore, no prima facie case was made out in favour of the petitioner for issuing any order staying the recovery proceedings for the charges of electricity consumed by the unit being operated by the respondent, unless the demanded amount was deposited by the present non-applicant. ( 23 ) IN view of the said reasonings, the ad interim stay granted in favour of the respondent was beyond jurisdiction, was not called for and was unwarranted. If under the order of the Court, the respondent deposited Rs. 10 lacs and the Board has withdrawn the said amount, it cannot be said that the respondent has paid any amount to the Board which was not payable to it. Therefore, on the basis that since the present respondent deposited the amount of Rs. If under the order of the Court, the respondent deposited Rs. 10 lacs and the Board has withdrawn the said amount, it cannot be said that the respondent has paid any amount to the Board which was not payable to it. Therefore, on the basis that since the present respondent deposited the amount of Rs. 10 lacs and the Board withdrew and received the said amount, it cannot be said that the Board agreed or acquiesced to the arbitration proceedings and/ or is estopped from challenging the said order passed by the Court concerned. ( 24 ) THE contention that no useful purpose would be served by auctioning the attached small scale unit is absolutely irrelevant for the purpose of the present proceedings. Such contention, if at all, may or may not be raised in the recovery proceedings. But so far as this arbitration proceeding is concerned, the said contention as to whether the auction of the attached unit would or would not yield any fruitful result has absolutely no bearing. ( 25 ) IN the result, miscellaneous appeal No. 664/95 is allowed and the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Katni is set aside. The recovery proceedings started by the Board against the present respondent/ non-applicant may continue. Civil Revision No. 1414/95 is also allowed and the order appointing the arbitrators is also quashed. ( 26 ) THE present respondent non-applicant shall bear its own costs and shall also bear the cost of the petitioner-Board, Counsels fees Rs. 500/ - if certified. Schedule of cost be drawn. Order accordingly. .