Month: December 2022

Electricity Act 2003 – Section 126 – Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 – Regulation 153(15) – Consumers in excess of the connected load/contracted load would amount to unauthorised use of electricity under explanation (b) to Section 126(6) of the Act 2003 – Regulation 153(15) of the Code 2014 is declared to be invalid being inconsistent with the provision of Section 126 of the Act 2003.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THOMAS JOSEPH ALIAS THOMAS M. J. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari…

Quashing of criminal complaint – gap of more than four years between the initial investigation and the filing of the complaint, and even after lapse of substantial amount of time, no evidence has been provided to sustain the claims in the complaint – law, must always ensure that frivolous cases do not pervert the sacrosanct nature of the law – Criminal complaint quashed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HASMUKHLAL D. VORA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and S. Ravindra Bhat,…

(CrPC) – Section 427 – there must be a specific direction or order by the court that the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence.rule is that where there are different transactions, different crime numbers and cases have been decided by the different judgments, concurrent sentence cannot be awarded under Section 427 Cr.P.C

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH IQRAM — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI. and Pamidighantam Sri…

Multiple dying declarations – in case the court comes to the conclusion that the dying declaration is true and reliable, has been recorded by a person at a time when the deceased was fit physically and mentally to make the declaration and it has not been made under any tutoring/duress/prompting; it can be the sole basis for recording conviction – In such an eventuality no corroboration is required

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJARAM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Criminal…

HELD there may be an illegal residential colony , therefore, it cannot be believed that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 original writ petitioners are in possession of the land in question and/or at the relevant time possession was not taken. Following (2020) 8 SCC 129 in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse. Writs dismissed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. RAM PRAKASH SEHRAWAT AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

Deficiency in service – way the issue was addressed by the Max Life Insurance Corporation following the information conveyed does fail, in our opinion, the test of Reasonable Conduct. HELD acts of Max Life Insurance Corporation amount to a clear case of deficiency of service and a non-bonafide conduct by the Max Life Insurance Corporation

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOKAL CHAND (D) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. AXIS BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Slump Sale Agreement – liability of the purchaser for the dues relating to activities and operations of the unit for the period anterior to 17.7.2010, could not therefore have been fastened on the appellant HELD that the liabilities for the transactions made prior to the sale agreement, are to be borne by the seller, U.P State Sugar Corporation .

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH WAVE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

Service Matters

Service Law – whether the seniority of direct recruits who were recruited in the recruitment process which commenced in the relevant recruitment year but ended thereafter, can be fixed by following rotation of quota by interspacing them with the direct recruits of the same recruitment year who were promoted earlier during the same year? Matter placed before 5 judge bench

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARIHARAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HARSH VARDHAN SINGH RAO AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Abhay S. Oka,…

Death case – Motor Accident – the actual income should be computed @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum. Applying 40% towards future prospects, the total annual income (Rs. 1,50,000 + Rs. 60,000) amounts to 2,10,000 – With a 1/4th deduction (4 dependents), the annual loss of dependency ( 2,10,000 – 52,500) would be Rs. 1,57,500 – Applying a multiplier of 16, total loss of dependency (i.e., Rs. 1,57,500 x 16) is Rs. Rs. 25,20,000 – Filial and parental consortium have to be increased – Each of the children, and the mother of the deceased, is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- – Thus, the total amount payable towards filial and parental consortium is Rs. 1,20,000/- – Appellants are entitled to Rs. 25,20,000/- towards loss of dependency; and the three appellants being the children and mother of the deceased, are entitled to Rs. 40,000/- each towards filial and parental consortium – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARPREET KAUR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MOHINDER YADAV AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. )…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.