As per case facts, the respondent, a consumer of electricity under the appellant-Corporation, had a "Mixed Load (HT)" connection for non-residential premises. A dispute arose regarding the monthly electricity tariff, ... which the consumers argued should be the higher of demand charges or energy charges. The Single Judge and Division Bench sided with the consumers, leading the Corporation to appeal to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether clauses (c) and (d) of the "Mixed Load HT" tariff meant electricity charges were the sum of demand charges *plus* energy charges, or whichever amount was higher. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the tariff explicitly states "demand charges *plus* energy charges," indicating a two-part tariff where both components are added. Clause (d) on minimum bill does not alter this, ensuring demand charges are the minimum even with no consumption. The Court found the language clear and unambiguous, concluding that previous observations in another case were not applicable due to differing tariff conditions.