Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Electricity Act

Corporate Electricity Act

Power Purchase Agreement – the finding of the CERC and the learned APTEL is to the effect that Adani Power Mundra Limited 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 22, 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

Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 – Appellate Tribunal for Electricity – As a judicial tribunal, dealing with contracts and bargains, which are entered into by parties with equal bargaining power, APTEL is not expected to casually render findings of coercion, or fraud, without proper pleadings or proof, or without probing into evidence. The findings of coercion are therefore, set aside.

Apr 18, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RENEW WIND ENERGY (RAJKOT) PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay…

Electricity Act

Long-term Power Purchase Agreements (“PPAs” for short) with Adani Power Maharashtra Limited HELD The CERC as well as the learned APTEL, on the interpretation of Articles 8.3.5 and 8.8.3 of the PPA, have concurrently found that the procurer had delayed the payment by not making the payment within the due date and, as such, GMR was entitled to late payment surcharge – Supreme court find no reason to interfere with the said concurrent findings of fact – Appeal dismissed.

Mar 7, 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…

Electricity Act

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.

Dec 27, 2022 sclaw

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…

Electricity Act

Electricity Act, 2003 – Sections 61, 62 and 63 – Determination of tariff – – The Electricity Act 2003 seeks to distance the State Governments from the determination and regulation of tariff, placing such power completely within the ambit of the Appropriate Commissions

Nov 27, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE TATA POWER COMPANY LIMITED TRANSMISSION — Appellant Vs. MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud,…

Electricity Act

Contract Act, 1872 – Sections 2 and 10 – Contract concluded – If the proposals containing the essential terms have been accepted, and the acceptance is communicated and, if the other conditions in Section 2 of the Indian Contract Act are complied with, viz., that is there is consideration and the contract is enforceable in law, within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act, it would lead to the creation of a concluded contract.

Nov 27, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS JINDAL THERMAL POWER COMPANY LIMITED AND JINDAL TRACTABEL POWER COMPANY…

Electricity Act

HELD there were several Inverters having numbers which were common/duplicate and interchangeably used in the same or other blocks. It was alleged that for about 186 Invertors serial numbers were commonly, duplicably and interchangeably used. Some of the inverter numbers were not legible. Therefore, it was alleged that there was lack of due diligence by the authorised personnel of the CEIG. Appeal dismissed

Nov 27, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M.P. POWER MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED, JABALPUR — Appellant Vs. M/S. SKY POWER SOUTHEAST SOLAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

Electricity Act

HELD It is not disputed that enhanced power tariff became effective from 1st January, 1992 and the Government of Kerala came with the GO dated 6th February, 1992 to provide exemption from enhanced power tariff to new industrial units starting commercial production between 1st January, 1992 and 31st December, 1996 for a period of 5 years from the date the unit started commercial production. . Appeal allowed

Nov 16, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. RUBFILA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and C.T.…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 394 read with Section 397 – Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery – The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 394 and 397 of the IPC, sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine, based on the recovery of stolen items and identification by the complainant – The appeal challenges the High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s appeal against the trial court’s conviction and sentence – The appellant contested the identification of the stolen items and the legality of the disclosure statement used to convict him – The State supported the trial court’s findings, emphasizing the recovery of stolen items and the identification process – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and ordered release, citing insufficient evidence to affirm guilt – The Court’s reasoning focused on the improper proof of the disclosure memo and the questionable identification of the stolen items by the complainant – The conclusion was that the prosecution failed to connect the appellant with the crime conclusively.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
State Laws

M.P. Excise Act, 1915 – The case involves the applicability of a rule for imposing penalties related to the liquor license period of 2009-10 and whether the old or substituted rule should apply – The main issue is whether the penalty should be based on the rule in place during the violation (2009-10) or the substituted rule from 2011, which reduced the penalty – The appellant argues for the application of the substituted rule, which imposes a lower penalty, as the old rule was repealed – The State contends that the old rule should apply to transactions from 2009-10, despite the substitution – The Supreme Court accepted the appellant’s contention, applying the substituted rule to pending proceedings – The Court reasoned that the purpose of the amendment was to balance the offence and penalty, and not applying the substituted rule would not serve public interest – The Court distinguished between the effects of repeal and substitution of rules, emphasizing that the substituted rule should apply from the date of substitution – The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court’s judgment, and the penalty was determined based on the substituted rule from 2011.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 236 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 190, 193 and 200 – The appeal challenges a High Court judgment regarding a complaint filed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India against the Ex-Directors of M/s. SBM Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. for offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The primary issue is whether the Special Court established under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013 has jurisdiction to try offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India argued that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings and that offences under the Code should be tried by the Special Court – The respondents contended that the High Court’s judgment was correct and that the Special Court did not have jurisdiction to try the complaint – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Special Court presided by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to try the complaint under the Code – The Court reasoned that the reference to the Special Court in Section 236(1) of the Code is a ‘legislation by incorporation’ and not a ‘legislation by reference’, meaning subsequent amendments to the Companies Act do not affect the Code – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine that the case is one of ‘legislation by incorporation’ – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration on merits. The judicial opinion emphasizes the importance of legislative intent and the distinction between ‘legislation by incorporation’ and ‘legislation by reference’ in determining jurisdiction.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(2) and 302 read with Section 149 – The appellants were convicted for the murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court, reversing their earlier acquittal by the trial court – The main issue was the reliability of eyewitness testimonies and the admissibility of evidence, such as the FIR and recovery of weapons – The appellants argued that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal, contending that the eyewitnesses were unreliable and the FIR was a post-investigation document – The State contended that the eyewitness testimonies were credible and the FIR was lodged promptly without undue delay – The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, acquitted the appellants, and discharged their bail bonds – The Court found inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts and issues with the FIR and recovery of weapons – The Court applied principles regarding the appellate court’s power in appeals against acquittal, emphasizing the need for the High Court to find perversity or illegality in the trial court’s judgment to reverse an acquittal – The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s judgment was flawed and restored the trial court’s acquittal of the appellants.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw