Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Electricity Act

Electricity Act

Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the question as to the validity of the Regulations framed by the CERC–Matter referred to larger bench–Electricity Act, 2003, Section 121–Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998, Section 27–Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Fixation of Trading Margin) Regulations, 2006.   

Jul 26, 2020 sclaw

2009(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 1037 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi The Hon’ble Mr. Justice…

Electricity Act

Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 125 – Electricity Supply Act, 1948 – Section 43(A) – Determination of tariff for sale of electricity by the generating company to the Electricity Boards – Agreement between the parties was that interest on the sum of Rs. 53.90 crores was payable for the specified period 01.07.2003 to 31.12.2009 -Therefore, CLP’s claim that any amount was payable, for any period prior to 01.07.2003, was not tenable

May 8, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CLP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran and…

Electricity Act

Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 56 – Disconnection of supply – Disconnection of supply is special power given to the supplier in addition to the normal mode of recovery by instituting a suit – HELD Once that plea for instalment payment was accepted and agreement was entered into for clearing the dues, it demonstrated willingness to pay on the part of the company of the dues in a manner acceptable to the appellant Board – Such plea of the company was accepted after keeping the matter pending for a long time – High Court was right in giving its finding that the act of disconnection was arbitrary – Appeals dismissed. Decided on : 27-04-2020

Apr 28, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ETC. — Appellant Vs. M/S ICEBERG INDUSTRIES LTD. AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and…

Electricity Act

Electricity Act, 2003 – Levy of wheeling charges – Transmission licence – It was contended on behalf of HPCL that 110 kV HPCL line is a transmission line – The metering for HPCL is done at TPC-D sub-station which is admittedly a transmission asset – The CEA Regulations 2010, the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Transmission Open Access) Regulations, 2016 and the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Open Access) Regulations, 2016 provide for demarcation between the transmission and distribution boundaries on the basis of voltage – The Tribunal erred in ignoring the said Regulations while holding that 2×110 kV lines are part of the distribution system HELD Tribunal judgement set aside, remitted for fresh adjudication.

Apr 3, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAI WARDHA POWER GENERATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE TATA POWER COMPANY LIMITED DISTRIBUTION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw