N.D.M.C. vs Karam Chand Thapar & Brothers P.Ltd on 16 July, 2009
11. We may also add that similar contention has been rejected by
the Kerala High Court in Abdul Nazer v. Kerala State Electricity
Board and Ors., AIR 2006 Kerala 20.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.26 seconds)Brihanmumbai Electric Supply And ... vs Rahath Silk Mills, Proprietary Concern ... on 14 September, 2007
10. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant strongly relied on Abdul Nazer v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Ors. , basically on the following para. Page 2243 Legislature never wanted that provision to operate retrospectively. Under such circumstances Board is right in its contention that the amount due from the consumer prior to the coming into force of the Electricity Act, 2003 could be recovered by revenue recovery proceedings since no time limit has been prescribed. Section 56(2) of the Act states that no sum due from any consumer under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity. Section 56(2) in our view is applicable only to amounts due after commencement of this Act. Under such circumstances we find no infirmity in Ext. 47 order and submitted that the amendment in Section 56 to the Electricity Act operates prospectively w.e.f. 02/06/2003 and therefore, the amount of energy charges which was due to board prior to coming into force. The said amendment Act is unapplicable on the basis of old unamended provisions. Therefore, the dues are recoverable as no time limit was prescribed earlier to this. The demands, as made for the period in question, are, therefore, proper and correct.
Assistant Secretary, vs K.T. Thomas, on 23 March, 2012
3. The counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of the High Court of Kerala in Abdul Nazer Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and Others 2006 (1) KLJ 440. On a perusal of the above decision we find that in the above case demand notice was issued prior to the date of commencement of the Indian Electricity Act in the State of Kerala ie on 10.12.2003. It was observed therein that the Act is not retrospective and hence the Electricity Board is entitled to realize the amount. As per Sec.56(2) no sum due from the consumer shall be recoverable after the period of 2 years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied. As noted above in the above cited decision demand notice was already issued prior to the said date. Hence we find the above decision is not applicable to the facts of the instant case.
1