Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC 108, Supreme Court held that where a consumer has used excessive load as against the installed load simpliciter and there is violation of the terms and conditions of supply, then, the case would fall under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003.
In the case at hand, PVVNL had argued that the rights of electricity suppliers were not subordinate and subject to the ‘priority of claims’ mechanism under the IBC.
The Tribunal regarded the hike in violation of Section 61(d) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and against the larger public interest, which is one of the critical factors to be taken into consideration in deciding whether to grant interim relief.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment, dating back to the year 1950, on Section 5 of the Electricity Act, 1910.
The ruling came in a batch of cases where new owners of properties, purchased in auction sales, have been denied electricity connections due to the previous owners’ failure to pay their electricity dues.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 9 R. 13 r/w S. 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 — Ex
Supreme Court has requested the Union of India along with Ministry of Power to evolve a mechanism so as to ensure timely payment by the DISCOMS to the Generating Companies, which would avoid huge carrying cost to be passed over to the end consumers.
The Right of speedy trial is a fundamental right, and its violation causes prejudice even to the accused person
Rules or regulation cannot be made to supplant the provisions of the enabling Act, but to supplement it. What is permitted is the delegation of ancillary or subordinating legislative functions, or what is fictionally called, a power to fill up details.
Allahabad High Court: In a public interest litigation filed by a Non-Governmental Organization (‘NGO') for restraining the Regulatory Commission from
Manipur High Court: In a writ petition filed challenging the compensation awarded by the Lower Court, the division bench of
Gujarat High Court: A.S. Supehia, J. has allowed a writ petition which was filed after the respondent authorities denied to
Supreme Court of India: While deciding the instant petition wherein the division bench of L. Nageshwar Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ., had
Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC): The Coram of P.K. Pujari (Chairperson), I.S. Jha (Member) and Arun Goyal (Member) disposed of a petition
Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL): A Coram of Manjula Chellur, J. (Chairperson) and S.D. Dubey (Technical Member), allowed an appeal which was
Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC): The Bench of P. K. Pujari (Chairperson) and I.S. Jha (Member), Arun Goyal (Member), rejected the petition
Supreme Court: The bench of Sanjay Kaul and KM Joseph, JJ. has held that electricity dues, where they are statutory in nature
Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC): A coram of Justice P.K. Pujari (Chairperson), M.K. Iyer (Member) and I.S. Jha (Member) disposed of a
Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC): The coram of P.K Pujari (Chairperson) and Dr M.K. Iyer (Member) allowed a petition filed by a
Jharkhand High Court: A Single Judge bench comprising of Chandrashekhar, J. allowed a civil writ petition challenging legality of provisional assessment order