Latest Post

Bird and Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking and Other Properties) Act, 1980 – Sections 3 and 7 – Renewal of mining leases granted to Bird and Company Limited, which were later vested in Bharat Process & Mechanical Engineers Limited (BPMEL) after nationalization. BPMEL, in liquidation, and its subsidiary OMDC are central to the case – The dispute revolves around the renewal of three expired mining leases: Kolha-Roida, Thakurani, and Dalki – TGP Equity Management Private Limited, an assignee of UCO Bank’s claims against BPMEL, seeks renewal or transfer of these leases – The Government of Odisha and the Union of India argue against renewal, citing BPMEL’s non-operation and financial constraints – The Supreme Court dismissed TGP’s appeals and upheld the State of Odisha’s order, rejecting the renewal of the Kolha-Roida lease – The Thakurani and Dalki leases are also rejected, citing the impracticality of renewing leases for a defunct company and the lack of a viable mining operation plan – The dispute should be resolved, with dues settled under the Companies Act, 1956. Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified. BAIL GRANTED NDPS – PROLONGED INCARCERATION – It is to observe that failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be considered. Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 – Sections 75(1)(g) and 90- The Supreme Court ruled that Nagar Nigam’s workshop was a ‘factory’ under the Act of 1948, and that it was engaged in a manufacturing process with over 20 workers – The Corporation argued that the workshop was a ‘factory’ and should pay contributions under the Act – Nagar Nigam argued that their workshop was not a ‘factory’ and their employees were not engaged in a manufacturing process – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court’s order, and clarified that Nagar Nigam could seek exemption under Section 90 of the Act of 1948 – The Court relied on precedents and statutory provisions of the Act of 1948 to determine that the workshop was a ‘factory’ and subject to the Act’s provisions – The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in its judgment and Nagar Nigam should have approached the Insurance Court instead of invoking writ jurisdiction. 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.

Bird and Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking and Other Properties) Act, 1980 – Sections 3 and 7 – Renewal of mining leases granted to Bird and Company Limited, which were later vested in Bharat Process & Mechanical Engineers Limited (BPMEL) after nationalization. BPMEL, in liquidation, and its subsidiary OMDC are central to the case – The dispute revolves around the renewal of three expired mining leases: Kolha-Roida, Thakurani, and Dalki – TGP Equity Management Private Limited, an assignee of UCO Bank’s claims against BPMEL, seeks renewal or transfer of these leases – The Government of Odisha and the Union of India argue against renewal, citing BPMEL’s non-operation and financial constraints – The Supreme Court dismissed TGP’s appeals and upheld the State of Odisha’s order, rejecting the renewal of the Kolha-Roida lease – The Thakurani and Dalki leases are also rejected, citing the impracticality of renewing leases for a defunct company and the lack of a viable mining operation plan – The dispute should be resolved, with dues settled under the Companies Act, 1956.

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.

Transfer of Case—Matrimonial Disputes— Where the parties have difficulty and there is no place which is convenient and where one or both the parties make a request for use of video conference, proceedings may be conducted through video conferencing, obviating the needs of the party to appear in person. Administration of Justice—Use of Technology—Every district court must have at least one e-mail ID and notified phone number—A designated officer/ manager to be appointed to respond to emails and phone queries—These steps would take care of the problems of litigants to some extent.

(2017) 174 AIC 103 : (2017) AIR(SCW) 1345 : (2017) 2 AIRJharR 462 : (2017) AIR(SC) 1345 : (2017) AllSCR 900 : (2017) 122 ALR 905 : (2017) 5 ALT…

Civil Procedure  Code, 1860, S.100–Second Appeal-Substantial question of law-­House Tax-While disposing off the appeal the high court did not decided the questions whether the suit seeking a declaration that the demand of House Tax raised under the Act is maintainable, Matter remanded back to be decided afresh-Haryana Municipal Act, 1973.

(2017) 174 AIC 95 : (2017) AIR(SCW) 1330 : (2017) 3 AIRJharR 321 : (2017) AIR(SC) 1330 : (2017) AllSCR 2127 : (2017) 123 ALR 284 : (2017) 3 AndhLD…

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307 and S.34–Attempt to Murder-Common Intention- -Appellant came along with three other person—One of them with the bomb- Accused 4 in coming together with the other four accused and going together with them, and in shouting the words “Kill him” certainly attracted the change under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the code

(2017) 100 ACrC 937 : (2017) 177 AIC 267 : (2017) AIR(SCW) 1415 : (2017) AIR(SC) 1415 : (2017) ALLMR(Cri) 3116 : (2017) 2 ALT(Crl) 69 : (2017) 2 AndhLD(Criminal)…

Anticipatory Bail — Murder — Father of deceased had sworn affidavit that death was natural-Police has started investigation on basis of an anonymous letter that appellant had extra material affair and had took advantage of his profession-Held; appellant has already joined investigation-High Court ought to have granted anticipatory bail in view of statement of father of deceased-Ordered accordingly-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438.

(2017) 99 ACrC 699 : (2017) 173 AIC 271 : (2017) 2 AICLR 360 : (2017) AIR(SCW) 1439 : (2017) AIR(SC) 1439 : (2017) ALLMR(Cri) 2210 : (2017) 1 BBCJ…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.