Supreme Court of India Judgements

47080 Judgements hosted as on 14/04/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Electricity Act

Electricity Act

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.

Dec 4, 2020 sclaw

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…

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

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) — Deficiency in service — Manufacturing defect — Vehicle purchased with manufacturing defect — State Commission awarded refund of purchase price and compensation — High Court modified the order, directing refund of the principal amount without interest or compensation, citing the complainant’s refusal to accept a replacement engine — Appeal partly allowed

Apr 14, 2026 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 21, 22 — Medical Negligence — Burden of Proof — Complainant failed to discharge the burden of proving medical negligence by leading cogent and convincing evidence — Mere assertions or affidavits are insufficient — Dismissed

Apr 14, 2026 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction — Limited scope — Cannot be invoked for setting aside orders based solely on appreciation of facts.

Apr 14, 2026 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d)(ii) — Definition of “Consumer” — Commercial Purpose — Bank Guarantees availed for the purpose of facilitating profit generation in a business transaction are not considered to be for a commercial purpose that excludes them from the definition of a consumer under the Act, especially when the dispute concerns the refund of commission for unutilized periods of such guarantees — The dominant purpose test applies, and the specific nature of the dispute regarding service charges makes the complaint maintainable — The interpretation of “commercial purpose” should not exclude disputes related to service charges for financial facilities.

Apr 14, 2026 sclaw