Supreme Court of India Judgements

46790 Judgements hosted as on 02/06/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Electricity Act

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,…

Electricity Act

Revised agreement – Reduction to 10000 KVA from 23000 KVA – Appellant neither sought for nor consumed the electricity more than the maximum demand of 10000 KVA – This Court directs the Respondent to return the amount as may be calculated and verified, paid by the Appellant to it for 13000 KVA, in excess to its request of maximum sanctioned demand of 10000 KVA (23000-10000 = 13000 KVA)

Jul 19, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE MADRAS ALUMINIUM CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Sanjay Karol…

Electricity Act

Power Project Agreement – Railway transportation cost – Change in Law – Cost of saving in the railway transportation on account of ‘Change in Law’ needs to be worked out and passed on to the appropriate DISCOMS, which can further be passed on to the consumers – CERC, which is a body of experts, is best suited to do so –

Apr 24, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ADANI POWER (MUNDRA) LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai…

You missed

Acquittal

A flawed investigation, suppression of material evidence in the form of contradictory witness affidavits, and failure to address glaring inconsistencies render prosecution evidence unreliable, necessitating acquittal to ensure a fair trial.

Jun 3, 2025 sclaw
I P C

Five golden principles for cases based on circumstantial evidence reiterated: (1) circumstances establishing conclusion of guilt must be fully established; (2) facts established consistent only with hypothesis of guilt; (3) circumstances conclusive in nature; (4) exclude every possible hypothesis except guilt; (5) complete chain of evidence leaving no reasonable ground for innocence

Jun 3, 2025 sclaw
State Laws

Appellant Trust’s contentions regarding non-demarcation, encroachment, and non-delivery of possession are baseless; demarcation was done and acknowledged, alleged encroachment is not proven by evidence, and delivery of possession was contingent on execution of lease deed, a condition appellant failed to meet — Respondent Corporation’s actions were in accordance with prescribed procedures and allotment terms

Jun 3, 2025 sclaw
Environment Municipal Laws

Environmental Law — Public Trust Doctrine — MCGM’s mandate to develop recreational spaces providing legal foundation for project — Prior condition of water body suggested degradation, not functional lake — Completed park providing substantial public benefit, including green space and recreational amenities utilized by community — Post facto sanction restricting land use to recreational purposes providing legal safeguard — Delay in filing petition undermining challenge — Direction to maintain park in perpetuity for public use, explore alternative water body, and restore other deteriorated water bodies by MCGM.

Jun 3, 2025 sclaw