The Supreme Court has brought to an end a long-running dispute between M/s Shivhare Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. and the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board arising out of a 1992 vehicle hire agreement, holding that the Electricity Board would be entitled to ₹62 lakh in full satisfaction of its claim. A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar disposed of the matter by directing release of the amounts already deposited before the High Court and the Supreme Court to the Electricity Board.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from a contract dated April 22, 1992, under which the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board hired out two tractor-trailers to M/s Shivhare Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. One trailer had a capacity of 100 metric tonnes and the other 50 metric tonnes. The monthly hire charges were fixed at ₹55,000 and ₹35,000 respectively.
According to the Electricity Board, the defendants initially paid the hire charges but later sought a waiver from June 1994, contending that they were rendering services to the Board. When the outstanding hire charges remained unpaid, the Board instituted a recovery suit on August 1, 1998.
The defendants contested the suit and also filed a counterclaim seeking ₹73,19,372 towards transportation bills allegedly payable to them. The Electricity Board opposed the counterclaim.
Evidence Before the Trial Court
During the trial, evidence revealed that the tractors had been manufactured in the United States in 1982, while the trailers were manufactured in India in 1979. The vehicles were registered in 1982 and had originally been purchased for about ₹50 lakh.
The evidence further showed that the fitness certificates of the vehicles had expired in March 1992 and March 1991 respectively, and no steps had been taken thereafter to obtain fresh fitness certificates because the vehicles were intended to be sold on an “as is where is” basis. The hire agreement itself was for a period of three years.
Trial Court and High Court Decisions
On July 30, 2011, the Trial Court decreed the Electricity Board’s suit. It directed the defendants to pay the depreciated value of the vehicles amounting to ₹23,02,932.28, along with outstanding rent of ₹23,56,752 carrying interest at 6% per annum. The court also awarded compensation of ₹90,000 per month with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit until return of the vehicles. The defendants’ counterclaim was rejected as barred by limitation.
The defendants challenged the decree before the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court re-examined the matter and affirmed the Trial Court’s decree, dismissing the appeal.
Proceedings Before the Supreme Court
While issuing notice in the Special Leave Petition, the Supreme Court directed the parties to explore mediation and required the defendants to deposit ₹20 lakh as a condition for stay of execution of the decree. The mediation efforts, however, did not succeed.
The Court heard submissions from the parties and noted that both sides ultimately left the matter to the Court’s discretion after being informed that the dispute should be brought to a final conclusion.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Court took note of several relevant circumstances, including the age of the vehicles, which had been manufactured in 1979 and 1982, and the fact that their fitness certificates had expired decades earlier without renewal. It also observed that the Trial Court had assessed the depreciated value of the vehicles at approximately ₹23 lakh in 2011.
The Bench further noted that ₹12 lakh had already been deposited before the High Court during the pendency of the appeal, while ₹50 lakh had subsequently been deposited before the Supreme Court pursuant to its interim directions.
Taking an overall view of the matter and without undertaking a detailed examination of the rival contentions, the Court observed:
“Taking an overall view of the matter and without entering into detailed appreciation of the rival submissions, in our view, the ends of justice would be met if the plaintiff is awarded a sum of ₹62,00,000/- towards its claim as made so as to put an end to the entire litigation that has continued for almost three decades.”
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the Electricity Board would be entitled to ₹62 lakh towards full satisfaction of the decree passed by the Trial Court. It directed that the ₹12 lakh deposited before the High Court along with accrued interest be released to the respondent. The Court also ordered release of the ₹50 lakh deposited before the Supreme Court Registry, together with accrued interest, to the Electricity Board. The Special Leave Petition was accordingly disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: M/s Shivhare Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5432 of 2026
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Date: May 26, 2026
