ORDER : 1. Appellant 1 herein is a company (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’) registered under the Companies Act and has a factory in the district of Satna in the State of Madhya Pradesh where it is manufacturing cement. On the basis of agreement between the Company and the State of Madhya Pradesh, the State of Madhya Pradesh is supplying raw water directly from the river to the appellant's factory. Dispute in this case is at what rate the Company is liable to pay the water charges. In the year 1983, the Company was served with three notices of demand. The first demand notice dated 2-2-1983 was for Rs. 43,45,050.11 for the period 1-8-1969 to 31-3-1981. The second demand was dated 2-2-1983 for the period 1-4-1981 to 31-3-1982. The third demand is dated 8-9-1986 for Rs. 21,78,812.15 for the period 14-3-1986 to 31-8-1986. Under the first demand water charges were assessed at the rate of Rs. 1.50 per 1000 gallons with late fee and surcharge. The second demand was for late payment and surcharge. The third demand was at the rate of Rs. 2.20 per 1000 litres, which is equal to Rs. 10 per 1000 gallons. It is relevant to mention here that on 3-8-1982 the Company entered into an agreement wherein it undertook to pay water charges at the rate of Rs. 2.25 per 4540 litres with effect from 1-4-1981 and for the period prior to 1-4-1981, the Company gave an undertaking that they would accept the rate fixed by the State Government from time to time. After giving the said undertaking the appellant challenged the aforesaid three demands by means of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court was of the view that the third demand for the period 14-3-1986 to 31-8-1986 was unreasonable as it was found that the rate on the basis of which the demand was raised was excessive. The High Court found that the respondent was not entitled to late-payment charges and surcharge. Consequently, the first and second demands were also set aside because the demands included late payment and surcharge. The High Court was of the further view that the appellant Company is bound by the undertaking given by it and the Company is liable to pay water charges at the rate of Rs. Consequently, the first and second demands were also set aside because the demands included late payment and surcharge. The High Court was of the further view that the appellant Company is bound by the undertaking given by it and the Company is liable to pay water charges at the rate of Rs. 1.50 per 1000 gallons prior to 1-4-1981 and Rs. 2.25 per 1000 gallons after 1-4-1981. The High Court further directed respondents to fix a reasonable rate for untreated water, after hearing the appellant, for the period 14-3-1986 to 31-8-1986. Although the appellant got the substantial relief from the High Court, yet it has chosen to file this appeal. 2. Learned counsel, appearing for the appellant urged that the undertaking given by the appellant Company was under duress and, therefore, it is not an undertaking in the eyes of law and the appellant is not liable to pay the water charges under such circumstances. There is no material before us to come to this conclusion that the undertaking given by the appellant was under duress. On the contrary we find that the appellant had given the solemn undertaking voluntarily. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal. 3. The appeal is, accordingly dismissed with costs. The respondents shall now fix the charges as directed by the High Court within a month. Appeal dismissed.