Category: 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

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.…

Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 14 – Grant of licence – requirements relating to the capital adequacy, creditworthiness, or code of conduct as may be prescribed by the Central Government, and no such applicant, who complies with all the requirements for grant of licence, shall be refused grant of licence on the ground that there already exists a licensee in the same area for the same purpose.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M/S. JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE CHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi…

Power Purchase Agreement – Compounded interest – Change in Law – Adani Power is justified in stating that if the banks have charged it interest on monthly rest basis for giving loans to purchase the FGD, any restitution will be incomplete, if it is not fully compensated for the interest paid by it to the banks on compounding basis

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ADANI POWER (MUNDRA) LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana,…

Electricity Act, 2003 – Sections 2, 2(8), 9 and 24(2) – A combined reading of Section 9 and Clause (8) of Section 2 of the said Act would reveal that a person is entitled to construct, maintain or operate a captive generating plant – Such a plant should be primarily for his own use

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. CHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 12 – Electricity Act, 2003 – Sections 61, 62, 84 and 86(1)(b) – Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reform Act, 1998 – Section 21 – Withdrawal of petition for grant of approval of Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) – – Appellants (DISCOMS) could not be permitted to change the decision at their whims and fancies and, particularly, when it is adversarial to the public interest and public good – APTEL has rightly held that the appellants-(DISCOMS) could not have been permitted to withdraw petition.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION POWER COMPANY LIMITED OF ANDHRA PRADESH (APSPDCL) AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S HINDUJA NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER —…

Maharashtra Electricity Duty Act, 2016 – Section 3(2) – Levy of electricity duty on educational charitable institutions- Other than the State Government, Central Government and the local bodies and the Government hostels, no exemption from payment of electricity duty has been provided – Charitable education institutions registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act and/or under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, are not entitled to any exemption

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Appellant Vs. SHRI VILE PARLE KELVANI MANDAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna,…

Electricity Act, 2003 – Sections 9 and 42(4) – Captive consumers/captive users – Liability to pay additional surcharge – HELD – In the case of the captive consumers/captive users, they have also to incur the expenditure and/or invest the money for constructing, maintaining or operating a captive generating plant and dedicated transmission lines – Therefore, as such the Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that so far as the captive consumers/captive users are concerned, the additional surcharge under sub-section (4) of Section 42 of the Act, 2003 shall not be leviable.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S. JSW STEEL LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv…

Appellate Tribunal reversed the findings recorded by the Commission regarding commissioning of plant by relying upon certificate issued by the KPTCL that the Solar Plants were commissioned on 16.10.2017 – No dispute about power injected – Judgment of Appellate Tribunal upheld – Appeals dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM) — Appellant Vs. E.S. SOLAR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao…

Unjust enrichment of a person occurs when he has and retains money or benefits which in justice and equity belong to another – Doctrine of unjust enrichment could have been attracted if the respondent had passed on the electricity duty to its customers and then retained the refund occasioned by the 50 per cent rebate in its own pocket – This is not demonstrated to be the factual position and hence, the respondent cannot be denied relief on the application of the doctrine.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BRAHMPUTRA METALLICS LTD., RANCHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud…

You missed

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.