R. C. LAHOTI ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, accompanied by an application seeking an ad-interm injunction against the demand raised by the respondents. The respondents have made appearance. They have opposed the petition as well as the application, without filing formal replies, founding their contentions on such facts as are beyond the pale of controversy. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief, and in so far as relevant. The petitioner is a mixed load H. T. Consumer, having a sanctioned supply since the year 1966 and having entered into an agreement with the respondents in the same year. Disputes arose between the parties. Petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was filed which w as entertained by this Court. On 22. 11. 90 this court disposed of the petition by directing the disputes raised by the petitioner to be referred for adjudication by arbitration. Simaltenously, this Court had also allowed an interim relief to the petitioner, the relevant part whereof reads as under :- ". . . . . . . . HENCE till the disposal of the matter by the arbitration it would be in the interest of justice that the petitioner is not made to deposit the disputed amount pertaining to the said disputes. In case if the award is ultimately held in favour of the respondent, the petitioner would be bound to pay the disputed amount w ith interest at the rate of 12% p. a. . . . . . . " ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS w ent in appeal before a Division Bench of this Court The appeal w as dismissed. The respondents then w ent to the Supreme Court. The decision by the Supreme Court is reported as Municipal Corporation of Delhi VS. The Asian Art Printers Pvt Ltd. and Ors. , JT 1994 (5) SC 267. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court interpreted the statutory tariff and finally resolved the controversy between the parties. Their Lordships set aside the order of the Single Judge dated 22. 11. 90 as also the order of Division Bench. Their Lordships also held that the disputes raised by the petitioner having been decided finally by the order of their Lordships it was no longer necessary to make the reference to arbitration. Their Lordships set aside the order of the Single Judge dated 22. 11. 90 as also the order of Division Bench. Their Lordships also held that the disputes raised by the petitioner having been decided finally by the order of their Lordships it was no longer necessary to make the reference to arbitration. The restraint order/stay order passed by the High Court pending disposal of the arbitration proceedings was also directed to be specifically vacated. ( 4 ) CONSEQUENT to the judgement of the Supreme Court, the respondents have raised a demand against the petitioner. They are demanding the amount of all the outstanding bills alongwith surcharge calculated @ 3% per month consistently w ith the Tariff. As on the day, the amount of surcharge stands accumulated to Rs. 11,87,877. 00. The principal amount had also accumulated to little less than Rs. 16 lacs as to which the respondents have allowed facility of payment by instalments to the petitioner. It is conceded at the bar that the petitioner has paid all the other instalments of principal amount and the last instalment only remain to be paid which would be cleared within this month. ( 5 ) THREE contentions have been raised by the petitioner :- (1) The petitioner having raised a bonafide dispute as to the interpretation of Tariff and the outstanding principal demand against the petitioner having been restrained from recovery under the orders of the Court, the petitioner cannot be held liable to pay surcharge merely because ultimately the interpretation of tariff has gone against the petitioner;. (2) Liability to pay surcharge arises only when the bill is not paid within a prescribed time from the date when it becomes due ; in the case at hand the bills shall be deemed to have become due on the date of the judgment of Supreme Court and as such the surcharge can be levied calculated only from the date of the judgment of the Supreme Court which is 31st August, 1994 and not before; (3) this Court had by its order dated 22. 11. 11. 90, directed the disputed amount to be paid with interest @ 12% p. a. in the event of the disputes being decided ultimately in favour of the respondent and that having been done by the judgement of the Supreme Court the liability of the petitioner cannot exceed beyond one to paying interest @ 12% p. a. The petitioner cannot be held further liable to pay surcharge @ 36% p. a. ( 6 ) THE tariff which is revised from time to time by DESU is prepared under Section 283 of Municipal Corporation Act. It is well settled that the tariff is statutory in character, [see Division Bench decision of this Court in Gulab Rai VS. M. C. D. , AIR 1990 Delhi 249]. While fixing the rates of charges the Corporation exercises its statutory power and even otherwise by virtue of the provisions of Clause 15 of the Agreement, the consumer is liable to pay at such rates as may be determined from time to time by the MCD (DESU ). ( 7 ) THE relevant clauses of the Agreement between the parties are 15 (a) and 16 which are reproduced hereunder :- "15 (a) The consumer shall pay each month to the Undertaking for electrical energy supplied during the preceding month such amount as shall be calculated and ascertained in accordance with the Rate-Schedule, attached hereto. The rates contained in the schedule are those in force at the time of executing this agreement. The consumer shall be eligible for whatever reduction or rebate as may be granted on the rates and shall be liable to pay for whatever surcharge or increase in those rates as may from time to time be levied or made by the Undertaking. Any other method of charging decided by the Undertaking shall also be applicable. 16. The consumer shall pay the bill or bills within fifteen days from the date of their presentation, notwithstanding am difference or dispute which may occur as to the accuracy of the sums involved in am bill. If the consumer fails to pay the amount of any bill due under this agreement within fifteen days from the date of presentation of the bill referred to, he shall pav a surcharge of one per cent each month or part of a month for which the bill remains unpaid from the date of presentation. If the consumer fails to pay the amount of any bill due under this agreement within fifteen days from the date of presentation of the bill referred to, he shall pav a surcharge of one per cent each month or part of a month for which the bill remains unpaid from the date of presentation. If the amount of such bill remains unpaid for sixty days after the date of presentation, the undertaking shall give the consumer seven clear days notice of its intention to discontinue the supply of electrical energuy and if the payment has not been received at the expiry of such period, it may forthwith disconnect the supply until full payment of all outstanding obligations and the charges for the work of disconnection and reconnection have been made together w ith a surcharge of one per cent added at the end of each successive thirty days period of part thereof until the amount is paid in full. " ( 8 ) THE relevant Tariff applicable to Mixed Load H. P. Consumer (which the petitioner is) provides inter alia :- PAYMENT:- "in the event of monthly bill rendered by the undertaking not being paid in full within the time specified in the bill a surcharge @, 3% on the amount of the bill if not paid shall be levied each 30 days successive or part thereof till the amount is paid in full without prejudice to the rights of the undertakings to disconnect the supply. "here itself it will be relevant to notice Conditions of Supply which too are statutory in character. Clause 25 (b) thereof provides as under :- "25. Payment of Bills (a) x x x (b) Any complaint w ith regard to the accuracy of the bill shall be made in writing to the Undertaking and the amounts of such bills shall be paid under protest by the due date. The amounts of the bills paid under protect will be regarded as advance to the credit of the consumer s account until such time as the bills in dispute have been fully settled. " (c) x x x ( 9 ) IT is true that the petitioner had raised a dispute and he had sought for reference thereof to the arbitrator under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The Court had entertained the petition. " (c) x x x ( 9 ) IT is true that the petitioner had raised a dispute and he had sought for reference thereof to the arbitrator under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The Court had entertained the petition. It had allowed interim relief to the petitioner subject to the condition of the amount being liable to be paid with interest @12% p. a. in the event of the dispute being decided adversely to the petitioner. The dispute has been ultimately decided against the petitioner by the judgement of the Supreme Court. ( 10 ) FOR the two reasons the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the liability of the petitioner cannot exceed beyond payment of interest @ 1% per month is liable to be rejected. Firstly, the order of the Single Judge dated 22. 11. 90 has become non-existent in view of the order having been set-aside by the Supreme Court. Even othersiwe it cannot be said that this Court while putting the petitioners on terms by its order dated 21. 11. 90 had at any time explicitly or by necessary implication suspended the operation of Clauses 15 (a) and 16 of the Contract and the Tariff, specially the provisions thereof relating to surcharge The surcharge is levied by virtue of a statutory provisions contained in the statutory Tariff made in exercise of the power conferred by Section 283 of the DMC Act. Liability to pay interest @ 12% p. a. was created by the order of the Court in exercise of the inherent power vesting in the Court to put a petitioner on terms while passing any interim order to the benefit of any of the parties. I am of the opinion that if the order dated 21. 11. 90 would not have been set aside by the Supreme Court and merely the disputes raised in the petition would have been adjudicated against the petitioner then the petitioner would have remained liable to pay interest @ 12% p. a. for restoring back the benefit which it had enjoyed under the order of the Court, as also for payment of surcharge which the respondent-DESU is entitled to recover by virtue of its statutory power However, this aspect of the controversy need not detain this Court any further because as already stated, the order dated 21. 11. 11. 90 has been set aside in its entirety by the Supreme Court. Let it also be placed on record that the learned counsel for the respondents has made a statement at the Bar that the respondents are recovering merely surcharge from the petitioner and have not raised any demand for interest in terms of the order dated 21. 11. 90 of this Court nor do they propose to press for recovery of interest. ( 11 ) THE other contention of the petitioner is that the amount of the bill shall be deemed to have beeome due only with the judgment of the Supreme Court. This contention has also to be rejected for more reasons than one. 11. 1 Firstly, in accordance with relevant para of the Tariff reproduced here in above, the liability of the consumer to pay the bill arises simlutenously with the bill being "rendered" by the undertaking. 11. 2 Secondly, this Court had never restrained the respondent from raising the demand and rendering the bills in accordance with its interpretation of the Tariff. What was restrained by this Court was merely deposit or payment of the disputed amount. The bills were being issued month by month and the amount. thereof was also falling due month by month. In other words, the bills issued to the petitioners were falling due month by month. On account of non-payment of bills the statutory liability of the petitioner to pay surcharge was also being attracted. But the petitioner was not depositing the amount yet enjoying the electricity on account of restraint order passed by this Court. 11. 3 In Black s Law Dictionary, one of the meanings of due is given as owed, or owing as distinguished from payable. This is the meaning to be assigned in the context to the term due . The bills were. not restrained, nor prevented, from falling due on due dates; though they were not payable in view of the restraint order. Consenquent to the interim order of this Court having been vacated and the disputes having been decided against the petitioner, the liability of the petitioner to deposit the bills with surcharge effective from the due dates of the bills became alive and enforcable. 11. Consenquent to the interim order of this Court having been vacated and the disputes having been decided against the petitioner, the liability of the petitioner to deposit the bills with surcharge effective from the due dates of the bills became alive and enforcable. 11. 4 The petitioner was put by this Court on the condition of payment of interest @ 1% p. m. but that was not in lieu of petitioner s obligation to pay surcharge @ 3% under the Tariff. ( 12 ) WHAT would happen if petitioner s contention was to be accepted? Litigation and indulging in judicial adventurism would become a profitable industry . File a petition or suit; have an interim order; and then you certainly stand to gain even if you lose the principal matter. Such a consequence is neither intended nor can be permitted. ( 13 ) I also see no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the term surcharge as used in Clause-15 (a) of the contract and as used in Clause 16 of the Contract, is in two different contexts and should be interpreted differently. ( 14 ) THAT being the factual and legal position there is no merit in the petition. It does not raise any dispute, much less a bonafide dispute, liable to be referred to the arbitrator. The petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act is, therefore, rejected. ( 15 ) IA 1379/95 seeking interim relief also does not survive for adjudication as the main petition itself stands rejected. ( 16 ) INSPITE of the petition and the application for interlocutory relief having been rejected, the petitioner deserves to be shown some parting indulgence. As already stated, the respondent itself had allowed the petitioner the facility of payment of principal amount of the bills by instalments which were respectively of Rs. 7 lacs, 4 lacs and Rs. 84,000. 00 and four instalments of Rs. 1 lac each. The principal thus stands cleared with the last instalment due and payable in the month of February, 1994. The amount of surcharge which has accumulated till this time stands quantified at Rs. 11,87,877. 00. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case it will be appropriate to afford the facility of payment of this amount also by instalments. Such a view has been taken also by a Division Bench of this Court in an order dated 10. 2. 11,87,877. 00. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case it will be appropriate to afford the facility of payment of this amount also by instalments. Such a view has been taken also by a Division Bench of this Court in an order dated 10. 2. 95 in FA (QS) No. 13/95, a copy whereof has been placed on the record of this case. ( 17 ) IT is directed that the petitioner shall pay the amount of surcharge of Rs. 11 ,87,877. 00 in accordance with the following schedule :- Rs. 3 lacs on or before 25. 3. 95 Rs. 2,87,877. 00 - on or before 25. 4. 95 Rs. 61acs - In monthly instalments of Rs. 2 lacs each, commencing on or before 25th May, 1995 and then on or before 25th day of each succeeding month. So long as the petitioner follows the Schedule of payment abovesaid, the electric supply of the petitioner shall not be liable to be disconnected for non payment of abovesaid dues.