Supreme Court of India Judgements

46800 Judgements hosted as on 24/06/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Electricity Act

“Supreme Court Rejects “Technicality”: Adani Power Loses Bid for Additional Payment from Rajasthan Discoms”

Bysclaw

Mar 23, 2024

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.

Existing Users Log In
   
Forgot password? Click here to reset
New User? Click here to register

By sclaw

Related Post

Electricity Act

Determination of ‘change in law’ compensation and carrying cost at LPS rates is governed by PPA restitutionary principles, effective from the event date, requiring supplementary billing after competent forum adjudication.

May 30, 2025 sclaw
Electricity Act

CERC’s Section 79(1) regulatory powers allow addressing consequences of delay not covered by Section 178 regulations or contracts; such orders are appealable under Section 111, not typically High Court writ. Dismissal of writ petitions by High Court despite alternative remedy is warranted when set exceptions are not met.

May 18, 2025 sclaw
Electricity Act

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.

Jun 10, 2024 sclaw

You missed

C P C

Res Judicata Principle Applies To Different Stages Of Same Proceedings As Well

Jun 24, 2025 sclaw
Consumer

Developer liable for refund with agreed interest for delayed possession; interest on allottee’s loan not developer’s direct liability, though loan financing can be a factor in awarding general compensation

Jun 12, 2025 sclaw
Constitution

Constitution of India — Article 20(3) — Right Against Self-Incrimination — Constitutional Validity of Narco-Analysis Test — Forced Tests Raise Serious Questions — Involuntary Administration Hit by Article 20(3) – Involuntary Narco-Analysis Test — Contravention of Rights — Results Not ‘Material Evidence’ — Violates ‘Substantive Due Process’ — Breaches Privacy Boundaries.

Jun 11, 2025 sclaw
C P C Railways Act

Demand notices for misdeclaration of goods under Section 66 of the Railways Act, 1989 are valid even if raised after delivery of goods, unlike punitive charges for overloading which must be recovered before delivery.

Jun 10, 2025 sclaw