Supreme Court of India Judgements

46855 Judgements hosted as on 16/09/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Electricity Act

Electricity Act

Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 — Electricity Act, 2003 —Tariff Determination — Supplementary PPA — Execution of Supplementary PPA and Stipulation of Enhanced Tariff without Seeking Commission’s Approval and Review is Unlawful — Parties are Bound to Approach Commission for Approval.

Aug 31, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1057 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. KKK HYDRO POWER LIMITED Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and N.V.…

Electricity Act

Electricity Act, 2003 — Section 61, 62, 86 — Tariff determination — Regulatory asset — Creation, continuation, and liquidation of regulatory asset — Governed by Act, National Tariff Policies, Rules, Regulations, and APTEL precedents. – Electricity Act, 2003 — Section 61, National Tariff Policy, 2006, Clause 8.2.2 — Regulatory asset — Creation should be an exception, circumstances clearly defined, recovery time-bound within three years.

Aug 9, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 937 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta,…

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

2025 INSC 697 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED Vs. MADHYA PRADESH POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and…

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

(2024) INSC 439 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SUNDEW PROPERTIES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. TELANGANA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna…

Electricity Act

Electricity Act, 2003 – Sections 62(3) and 111 – Levy of reliability charge – Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. imposed a reliability charge for uninterrupted power supply, which was challenged by JSW Steel Ltd – The appellant argued that non-participation in the public hearing by JSW Steel Ltd. amounted to consent to pay the charge – JSW Steel Ltd. argued that they were already paying a higher tariff and should not be subjected to the charge – The Tribunal set aside the Commission’s order imposing the charge, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal – The Court found no statutory basis for the charge and noted that JSW Steel Ltd. had already paid a higher tariff for continuous supply – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant was not entitled to impose a reliability charge on customers like JSW Steel Ltd. and found no merit in the appeal.

Jun 3, 2024 sclaw

(2024) INSC 442 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. M/S JSW STEEL LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay…

Electricity Act

Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 86(1)(a) read with Section 62 – Recovery of deductions of monthly tariff – Dispute inter se the parties is in the nature of a contractual dispute – Normally, costs must go with the succeeding party in case of a contractual dispute – This is more so where one party repeatedly seeks to evade the rigors of the orders

Oct 15, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NABHA POWER LIMITED — Appellant Vs. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar,…

You missed

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 223(d) — Persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction may be charged and tried together — Legislative intent is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, avoid conflicting judgments, and promote judicial economy while ensuring fairness — Segregation without legally recognized grounds like distinct facts, severable evidence, or demonstrated prejudice, is impermissible.

Sep 16, 2025 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 463, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 read with Section 34 — Offences relating to cheating and forgery — Anticipatory bail — Rejection challenged — Appellants, public servants at the time, accused of certifying mutation entries based on forged documents — High Court rejected anticipatory bail — Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision

Sep 16, 2025 sclaw
Constitution

Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended) — Challenge to constitutional validity of amendments — Petitioners contended that amendments are ultra vires the Constitution, violating fundamental rights including Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 300A. Respondents argued for legislative competence and presumption of validity of enactments. Court emphasized that statutes should only be declared unconstitutional if there is a clear, glaring, and undeniable violation of constitutional principles or fundamental rights, or if manifestly arbitrary, and that courts must strive to uphold legislative validity.

Sep 16, 2025 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 25 — Enforcement of orders — Pre-2002 amendment and post-2019 Act, all orders could be enforced as decrees. The period between 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 saw an anomaly where only interim orders (and monetary recovery) were clearly enforceable under Section 25, leaving final non-monetary orders in a gap. Interpretation of Statutes — Casus omissus — Court can fill gaps in legislation using interpretative tools like purposive construction when literal interpretation leads to absurdity or defeats the object of the Act, especially for remedial legislation like the Consumer Act.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw