{"id":44621,"date":"2016-04-22T15:59:17","date_gmt":"2016-04-22T10:29:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=44621"},"modified":"2016-05-11T17:43:05","modified_gmt":"2016-05-11T12:13:05","slug":"policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/22\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\/","title":{"rendered":"Policy decision of charging pooled price for Regasified Liquefied Natural Gas upheld"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: Upholding validity of the policy dated 06.03.2007 by which the Central Government said that a uniform pooled prices should be charged for all the existing and new customers for Regasified Liquefied Natural Gas (RLNG), the bench of V. Gopala Gowda and U.U. Lalit, JJ held that the impugned policy decision was taken keeping in view the larger public interest and that it is nearly impossible to predict or even control LNG prices, as the same are controlled by global market forces. Hence, the only way to have any semblance of control over the prices of RLNG was to pool the prices of RLNG procured by the off-takers under long term contracts.<\/p>\n

Regarding the power of the Central Government to pass the impugned policy, it was held that by virtue of Article 73 of the Constitution of India read with Entry 53 of List I, the Union has the power to legislate and take policy decisions in relation to the matters pertaining to mineral oil resources and inflammable substances, which includes RLNG. It was further said that since there is no existing legislative provision as far as fixing of the price of RLNG is concerned, hence, the executive of the Union of India is well within its right to exercise its powers under the Constitution to take such decisions by way of policy decisions.<\/p>\n

Stating that the impugned policy was in no manner discriminatory, the Court held that the said decision was taken after due deliberation and exploring all other possible alternatives to reduce the price of RLNG, so as to make it viable for the new entrants in the market to buy it and run their projects in a feasible manner in the larger public interest. The consumers of RLNG though long term contracts are a class by themselves, for the purpose of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and that the policy was to apply to all the players within this class uniformly and across the board. [ESSAR STEEL LTD v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 342<\/a><\/b>, decided on 19.04.2016]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court: Upholding validity of the policy dated 06.03.2007 by which the Central Government said that a uniform pooled prices should be <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":154914,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-44621","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt"],"yoast_head":"\nPolicy decision of charging pooled price for Regasified Liquefied Natural Gas upheld | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/22\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Policy decision of charging pooled price for Regasified Liquefied Natural Gas upheld\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court: Upholding validity of the policy dated 06.03.2007 by which the Central Government said that a uniform pooled prices should be\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/22\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-04-22T10:29:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-11T12:13:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2016\\\/04\\\/22\\\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2016\\\/04\\\/22\\\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"headline\":\"Policy decision of charging pooled price for Regasified Liquefied Natural Gas upheld\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-04-22T10:29:17+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-11T12:13:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2016\\\/04\\\/22\\\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":352,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2016\\\/04\\\/22\\\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2017\\\/09\\\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2016\\\/04\\\/22\\\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2016\\\/04\\\/22\\\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2016\\\/04\\\/22\\\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\\\/\",\"name\":\"Policy decision of charging pooled price for Regasified Liquefied Natural Gas upheld | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2016\\\/04\\\/22\\\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2016\\\/04\\\/22\\\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2017\\\/09\\\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-04-22T10:29:17+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-11T12:13:05+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2016\\\/04\\\/22\\\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2016\\\/04\\\/22\\\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2016\\\/04\\\/22\\\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2017\\\/09\\\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2017\\\/09\\\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2016\\\/04\\\/22\\\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Policy decision of charging pooled price for Regasified Liquefied Natural Gas upheld\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/legal_editor\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Policy decision of charging pooled price for Regasified Liquefied Natural Gas upheld | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/22\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Policy decision of charging pooled price for Regasified Liquefied Natural Gas upheld","og_description":"Supreme Court: Upholding validity of the policy dated 06.03.2007 by which the Central Government said that a uniform pooled prices should be","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/22\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2016-04-22T10:29:17+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-11T12:13:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/22\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/22\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\/"},"author":{"name":"Sucheta","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"headline":"Policy decision of charging pooled price for Regasified Liquefied Natural Gas upheld","datePublished":"2016-04-22T10:29:17+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-11T12:13:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/22\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\/"},"wordCount":352,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/22\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","articleSection":["Case Briefs","Supreme Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/22\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/22\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/22\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\/","name":"Policy decision of charging pooled price for Regasified Liquefied Natural Gas upheld | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/22\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/22\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","datePublished":"2016-04-22T10:29:17+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-11T12:13:05+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/22\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/22\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/22\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/22\/policy-decision-of-charging-pooled-price-for-regasified-liquefied-natural-gas-upheld\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Policy decision of charging pooled price for Regasified Liquefied Natural Gas upheld"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":307462,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/20\/explained-supreme-court-verdict-importance-interpreting-commercial-contracts-with-original-intent-parties\/","url_meta":{"origin":44621,"position":0},"title":"Explained| Supreme Court\u2019s verdict on importance of interpreting commercial contracts in line with the original intent of parties involved","author":"Apoorva","date":"November 20, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court said that a deviation from the plain terms of the contract is warranted only when it serves business efficacy better","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"commercial contracts","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/commercial-contracts.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/commercial-contracts.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/commercial-contracts.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/commercial-contracts.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":233227,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/07\/31\/cerc-rejects-ntpcs-petition-for-removal-of-difficulties-on-the-aspect-of-the-severe-under-recovery-of-variable-charges-under-regulation-13-3-for-the-five-gas-based-generating-stations-of-ntpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":44621,"position":1},"title":"CERC rejects NTPC\u2019s plea for removal of difficulties on aspect of severe under-recovery of variable charges under Regulation 13.3 for five Gas Based Generating Stations of NTPC","author":"Editor","date":"July 31, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC): The Bench of P. K. Pujari (Chairperson) and I.S. Jha (Member), Arun Goyal (Member), rejected the petition of NTPC Limited after finding it contrary to the ASO regulations and RRAS. NTPC Limited is a \u2018generating company\u2019 as defined under Section 2(28) of the Electricity Act,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/Central-Regulatory-Electricity-Commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/Central-Regulatory-Electricity-Commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/Central-Regulatory-Electricity-Commission.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/Central-Regulatory-Electricity-Commission.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/Central-Regulatory-Electricity-Commission.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":279236,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/07\/karnataka-hc-healthcare-global-enterprises-loss-of-profit-due-to-price-regularisation-of-essential-anti-cancer-drugs-is-not-a-ground-for-judicial-review-of-a-government-policy\/","url_meta":{"origin":44621,"position":2},"title":"Karnataka HC | Healthcare Global Enterprises\u2019 loss of profit due to price regularisation of essential anti-cancer drugs, is not a ground for judicial review of a Government Policy","author":"Editor","date":"December 7, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"A Government Order regulating, and rationalising prices of essential anti-cancer drugs was challenged before the Karnataka HC. The Court clearly stated that the challenge vis-a-vis petitioner's loss of profit, cannot be sustained","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Karnataka High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Karnataka-High-Court-2-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":195346,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/04\/21\/2018-scc-vol-3-april-21-2018-part-5\/","url_meta":{"origin":44621,"position":3},"title":"2018 SCC Vol. 3 April 21, 2018 Part 5","author":"Saba","date":"April 21, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Specific Relief Act, 1963 \u2014 S. 16(c) \u2014 Specific performance of contract: In this case suit was filed by plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell, claiming that advance payment had been given by him towards sale price of land to defendants and that balance consideration was not paid\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":255058,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/01\/supreme-court-sets-aside-allahabad-hcs-decision-declaring-regulation-101-framed-under-intermediate-education-act-unconstitutional\/","url_meta":{"origin":44621,"position":4},"title":"Supreme Court sets aside Allahabad HC\u2019s decision declaring Regulation 101 framed under Intermediate Education Act unconstitutional","author":"Editor","date":"October 1, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIt is clear that recruitment by way of \u201cOutsourcing\u201d may have its own deficiencies and pit falls, however, a decision to take \u201cOutsourcing\u201d cannot be declared as ultra vires of the constitution on the basis of mere presumption and assumption.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":334274,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/01\/delhi-high-court-dismisses-contempt-proceedings-gail-india-reasonable-efforts-insolvency-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":44621,"position":5},"title":"Delhi High Court dismisses contempt proceedings by GAIL India Limited recognizing reasonable efforts amid insolvency challenges","author":"Arunima","date":"November 1, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court observed that the contempt proceedings against the respondents lacked legal foundation, as they were not parties to the original petitions instituted by the consortium companies.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44621","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=44621"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44621\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/154914"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44621"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44621"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44621"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}