citedby: 1033135

M/S. Intox Pvt. Ltd vs The Superintending Engineer And Ors on 12 March, 2019

We do not see how, therefore, there was any conflict for Awadesh Pandey's case (supra) was a simple case of threat of disconnection of electricity supply for default in payment of the electricity charges. That was a notice of disconnection under which the payment of arrears was raised.

Bombay High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Bulk Cement Corporation (India) ... vs The Maharashtra State Electricity ... on 12 March, 2019

We do not see how, therefore, there was any conflict for Awadesh Pandey's case (supra) was a simple case of threat of disconnection of electricity supply for default in payment of the electricity charges. That was a notice of disconnection under which the payment of arrears was raised.

Bombay High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 2 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Through Gm, Shri. ... vs Maharashtra State Electricity ... on 12 March, 2019

We do not see how, therefore, there was any conflict for Awadesh Pandey's case (supra) was a simple case of threat of disconnection of electricity supply for default in payment of the electricity charges. That was a notice of disconnection under which the payment of arrears was raised.

Bombay High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 3 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... vs Beach Tower Condominium And Anr on 12 March, 2019

We do not see how, therefore, there was any conflict for Awadesh Pandey's case (supra) was a simple case of threat of disconnection of electricity supply for default in payment of the electricity charges. That was a notice of disconnection under which the payment of arrears was raised.

Bombay High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Venco Research And Breeding Farms Pvt. ... on 12 March, 2019

We do not see how, therefore, there was any conflict for Awadesh Pandey's case (supra) was a simple case of threat of disconnection of electricity supply for default in payment of the electricity charges. That was a notice of disconnection under which the payment of arrears was raised.

Bombay High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Ambuja Cements Ltd vs The Maharashtra State Electricity ... on 12 March, 2019

We do not see how, therefore, there was any conflict for Awadesh Pandey's case (supra) was a simple case of threat of disconnection of electricity supply for default in payment of the electricity charges. That was a notice of disconnection under which the payment of arrears was raised.

Bombay High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs The Electricity Ombudsman And Ors on 12 March, 2019

We do not see how, therefore, there was any conflict for Awadesh Pandey's case (supra) was a simple case of threat of disconnection of electricity supply for default in payment of the electricity charges. That was a notice of disconnection under which the payment of arrears was raised.

Bombay High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 4 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Brihanmumbai Electric Supply And ... vs Maker Tower E And F Premises Chs Ltd., And ... on 12 March, 2019

We do not see how, therefore, there was any conflict for Awadesh Pandey's case (supra) was a simple case of threat of disconnection of electricity supply for default in payment of the electricity charges. That was a notice of disconnection under which the payment of arrears was raised.

Bombay High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document

M/S Sri Balaji Agro Industries vs The Managing Director & Ors on 7 August, 2017

10. Division Bench of Bombay High Court while interpreting Sec.56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 in AWADESH S.PANDEY Vs. TATA POWER CO. LTD. AND OTHERS (A.I.R.2007 BOMBAY-52) has ruled as under:

Karnataka High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - G Narendar - Full Document

Jaisy Chacko vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 9 April, 2021

17. Taking into account the above aspects and the legal position discussed above, I have no reason to think that the action initiated by the Board to recover the amounts due to it is, in any way, illegal or arbitrary. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to a Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Awadesh S. Pandey v. Tata Power Co. Ltd. and others [2007 KHC 6971=AIR 2007 Bom. 52], which was a case dealing with the limitation prescribed under Section 56 of the Act, 2003.

Kerala High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - S P Chaly - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results