Supreme Court of India Judgements

47070 Judgements hosted as on 24/03/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Electricity Act

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…

Electricity Act

Power Purchase Agreement – Adani Power Mundra Limited – the finding of the CERC and the learned APTEL is to the effect that AP(M)L would not be entitled to any benefit of Change in Law beyond 70% of the installed capacity i.e. 1386 MW – Findings cannot be said to not be based on the material on record, or based on extraneous considerations.

Apr 24, 2023 sclaw

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

Electricity Act

Power Project Agreement – Compensation on account of ‘Change in Law’ – What has been granted under the said methodology is the additional cost of transport which APML would be required to incur for transporting the coal from other locations on account of deallocation of Lohara Coal Blocks – No reason to interfere with the said finding with regard to methodology of arriving at the compensation payable on account of ‘Change in Law’ event.

Apr 24, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ADANI POWER MAHARASHTRA LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Vikram…

You missed

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34, Section 37 — Challenge to arbitral award — Jurisdiction of arbitrator — Clause in a contract that states one party’s decision is final and cannot be challenged in any court or arbitration is void if it seeks to prevent adjudication on disputed liability, as the determination of breach and liability rests with an adjudicatory forum, not the party alleging breach.

Mar 24, 2026 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 12A — Withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Commercial Wisdom of Committee of Creditors (CoC) — Primacy of CoC’s commercial wisdom in deciding withdrawal of CIRP is non-justiciable and not subject to appeal or review by adjudicating authorities, except on grounds of statutory illegality or jurisdictional infirmity — Supreme Court in a miscellaneous application concerning a disposed SLP from a civil revision cannot adjudicate rival offers or substitute its view for the CoC’s business decision.

Mar 24, 2026 sclaw
Service

Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997 — Rule 11(1), 11(3) & Rule 4(3) — Selection process for Gazetted Probationers — Vacancy arising from non-joining candidate — Claims of next eligible candidate — Held, select list is not an open-ended reservoir of candidates but is prepared for notified vacancies & operates within statutory framework — Inclusion in select list does not confer indefeasible right to appointment — Appointment governed by Rules & notified vacancies — No provision for reserve/waiting list under 1997 Rules — Post left unfilled due to non-completion of pre-appointment formalities or non-joining cannot be filled by operating the same select list & claiming by next candidate in absence of express statutory provision — High Court erred in allowing writ petition & setting aside Tribunal’s order.

Mar 24, 2026 sclaw
Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 15(1), 16, 309 — Relaxation in qualifying examination (TET) marks for reserved category candidates — The provision of relaxation in qualifying marks in TET enables reserved category candidates to enter the zone of consideration and does not affect their inter se merit in the main selection process (TAIT) — Migration to the open category is permissible if recruitment rules do not expressly prohibit it or are silent on the matter — Decisions in Pradeep Kumar and Sajib Roy are distinguishable as they dealt with candidates not fulfilling essential eligibility criteria, unlike in this case where relaxation in TET marks is expressly permitted by NCTE guidelines — The High Court erred in not allowing meritorious reserved category candidates to be considered under the general category — Appeals allowed, impugned judgment set aside.

Mar 24, 2026 sclaw