ORDER : Y.K. Sabharwal, C.K. Thakker, P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ. Respondent No.1, Patna Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (PESCO) was taken over by the appellant, Bihar State Electricity Board (BSEB). PESCO is the applicant seeking directions against BSEB for payment by BSEB to PESCO of the market value as per the book value calculated and agreed to in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding. There has been considerable amount of litigation between PESCO and BSEB but the back ground history is not relevant except to the limited extent of noting that in civil appeal between the parties (C.A.No.2630 of 1982) while granting special leave on 13th August, 1982, an order was made by this Court directing that the recovery of purchase price on the basis of market value is stayed but BSEB would pay to PESCO the purchase price on the basis of book value in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act. The order dated 5th December, 1995 records the submission made by Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel on behalf of PESCO that no payment had been made even on the basis of book value in terms of the directions given by this Court on 13th August, 1982. The Court directed that BSEB should have complied with the order dated 13th August, 1982 which direction was reiterated regarding payment by BSEB to PESCO of the purchase price on the basis of book value in accordance with the provision of the Act. According to the applicant PESCO, the payment, as directed by the Court, was not made which led to filing of this application in the beginning of the year 1997. 2. Various affidavits have been filed on behalf of the parties. It may also be noted that it is no longer in controversy that on the date of take over what is payable by BSEB to PESCO is the book value and not the market value. The controversy, however, is regarding the calculation of book value of the assets. Mr. G.N.Mehra, Legal Advisor in the BSEB, had filed an affidavit in Civil Appeal No.2630/1982, dated 5th July, 1996. Para 5 of the said affidavit reads as under: "5. That the matter was discussed in detail by the Board. It was found that the net amount of compensation payable to the Patna Electric Supply Co. Ltd. works out to Rs. 135.45 lacs. A detailed calculation has been enclosed (Annexure-I). Para 5 of the said affidavit reads as under: "5. That the matter was discussed in detail by the Board. It was found that the net amount of compensation payable to the Patna Electric Supply Co. Ltd. works out to Rs. 135.45 lacs. A detailed calculation has been enclosed (Annexure-I). Out of this amount payable to the Co., a sum of Rs. 99.72 lacs has already been paid to it by 4.2.1980. Thus, the balance amount payable to the Co. is only of the order of Rs. 35.74 lacs." 3. The details of calculation in the aforesaid paragraph, filed as Annexure-1, has two heads, namely, (a) Book Value of Assets and (b) Liabilities. Book value of assets as per the details of calculation is Rs. 320.16 lakhs and liabilities haves been shown to the tune of Rs. 184.70 lakhs. The amount payable after deducting all the liabilities from the book value of the assets has been worked out to Rs. 135.46 lakhs. The ad hoc payment, according to those calculations, made by BSEB to PESCO was to the tune of Rs. 99.72 lakhs between 1st April, 1974 and 8th February, 1980. Net amount payable has been shown to be Rs. 35.74 lakhs. It is not in issue that under the directions of this Court, a sum of Rs. 35.74 lakhs has been paid by BSEB to the Bank. One of the items taken into consideration while calculating the liabilities is a sum of Rs. 36.59 lakhs. It is not the case of the BSEB that this amount had been paid by it to Bank of India. On the other hand, it is the case of PESCO that this amount has been paid by it to Bank of India and in support a 'No Due Certificate' dated 21st March, 2001, issued in favour of PESCO by the Bank has been placed on record. The details of calculations read as under: Details of calculation (A) Book Value of Assets Add 235.01 (i) 10% Solatium 23.50 (ii) Consumer's Dues 69.37 Less (a) Unrealised, (-) 4.72 (b) Provision for bad & doubtful debit, (-) 2.43 (c) expenses incurred on collection, (-) 0.57, 61.65 7.72, 320.16 (B) Less Liabilities 1. Contingency Reserve 8.77 2. Amount of contingency reserve transferred to special reserve 4.05 3. Development Reserve 16.43 4. Consumer Rebate reserve 0.26 5. Unapproved expenditure for 1972-73 and 1973-74 3.45 6. Contingency Reserve 8.77 2. Amount of contingency reserve transferred to special reserve 4.05 3. Development Reserve 16.43 4. Consumer Rebate reserve 0.26 5. Unapproved expenditure for 1972-73 and 1973-74 3.45 6. Dues to Employees 31.18 7. Consumer's security deposit 41.85 8. Audit Fee 0.06 9. Fuel Surcharge Bill 29.44 10. Electricity Charges 2.42 11. CPF, SESI, coal, freight, streetlight etc. 10.20 12. Cash Credit with Bank of India 36.59, 184.70 Less adhoc payment made 135.46 1-4-1974 36.00 19- 7-1979 33.72 31-12-1979 10.00 24-01-1980 10.00 4-2-1980 10.00, 99.72 Net amount payable 35.74 4. The BSEB later filed affidavit of Mr. Vijay Kumar, its Deputy Director of Accounts, with a view to wriggle out what is stated in the aforesaid calculation of book value of the assets. He pleads that the assets, the book value of which, is to be determined under the provision of the Act, being Bihar Amendment to the Indian Electricity Act, do not include any outstanding dues towards supply of energy prior to take over. 5. We have perused the provision of the Act. It neither refers to the outstanding amounts being included nor the liabilities being deducted. As can be seen from the above calculation, the BSEB has deducted various heads of liabilities after determining the book value. On the same analogy, the amount as outstanding had to be taken into consideration while working out the book value of the assets of the company and that was what was done when Mr. Mehra filed the affidavit and the aforesaid annexure in the appeal. It is too late for the BSEB to contend otherwise apart from the fact that on equities too such a plea cannot be permitted to be urged. 6. The only other issue is about the liability of the BSEB to pay to PESCO the amount towards interest. 7. Mehra filed the affidavit and the aforesaid annexure in the appeal. It is too late for the BSEB to contend otherwise apart from the fact that on equities too such a plea cannot be permitted to be urged. 6. The only other issue is about the liability of the BSEB to pay to PESCO the amount towards interest. 7. Proviso (a) of Section 6(4) of the Act stipulates that "(a) the State Electricity Board or the State Government, as the case may be, shall pay or tender payment of the amount referred to in sub-section (5) of this section as soon as the amount has been determined, together with interest on such amount from the date of purchase to the date of payment or tender of payment as aforesaid at the rate of one per centum above the average of the Reserve Bank rates between the date of delivery of the undertaking and the dates of payment." 8. Nothing has been brought to our notice so as to deprive PESCO from being paid interest in terms of Section 6(4) of the Act. At the same time, the question of payment of any amount towards interest by BSEB to PESCO would arise only if the Bank has charged from PESCO interest on the aforesaid sum of Rs. 35.74 lakhs. Similarly, PESCO would be entitled to interest on the afore noted sum of Rs. 36.59 lakhs if the interest has been charged from it by the Bank and for the later period from the date of payment 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we conclude that (1) the amount of consumer dues calculated while arriving at the book value of the assets of PESCO cannot be questioned by BSEB at this stage; (2) PESCO is entitled to the sum of Rs. 36.59 lakhs provided it has made the payment on that account to the Bank; and (3) PESCO is entitled to interest in the manner above stated on filing requisite material on record along with an affidavit showing payment of interest. 9. The applicant-PESCO, as prayed, is granted two weeks' time to file requisite documents. Two weeks' time thereafter is granted to BSEB to respond, if so advised, to the affidavit and material that may be filed by PESCO. 10. As to the amount payable in terms of this order, the matter is adjourned for five weeks.