Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.09 seconds)
Documents citing Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ... vs Poonam Vashisth on 2 December, 2008

Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd ... vs M/S Sirohi Medical Center on 12 October, 2015

[29]. The case does not fall under any of the category of MOHMED ATIK 2015.10.17 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA No.4054 of 2013 (O&M) 15 Sections i.e 135 (a) to 135 (e) of the 2003 Act, therefore, issuance of notice in utter disregard to provisions of the Act makes the action of the Authority illegal. The defendants have raised illegal demand of huge amount of penalty on account of alleged theft of energy which is against the scheme of the 2003 Act. The bar of civil Court jurisdiction is only applicable where dispute falls within the purview of Section 126 of the 2003 Act. The demand of illegal amount is based on allegation of theft of energy, therefore, the contemplating action does not falls within the purview of Section 126 of the 2003 Act and the civil Court jurisdiction to entertain such a relief is maintainable. Reference can be made to Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited v. Poonam Vashisth, 2009(2) CivCC 131.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R M Singh - Full Document

D.H.B.V.N.L Sohna & Ors vs Mohammad Qayum Khan on 7 February, 2017

The abovesaid view taken by this Court also finds support from a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, 2011 (1) CCC 001 and three judgments of this Court in Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Vs. Harjit Singh, 2014 (1) RCR (civil) 101; Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Vs. Sulekha, 2014 (1) RCR (civil) 151 and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Vs. Poonam Vashisth, 2009 (2) PLR 677.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - R S Malik - Full Document

M/S Ujjal Rice Sheller vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. And ... on 24 February, 2011

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that meter of the plaintiff was checked on 9.5.2007 whereas electricity supply to the plaintiff's premises had been disconnected on 28.3.2007. It was also pointed out that according to data download (DDL) of the plaintiff's electronic meter, red phase of the meter stopped working since 4.5.2007 i.e. long after the electricity supply had been disconnected on 28.3.2007 and therefore, the question of theft of electricity by the plaintiff did not arise. It was accordingly argued that plaintiff's case, therefore, does not fall within the purview of section 126 of the Act and consequently jurisdiction of civil court is not barred by section 145 of the Act. Reliance in support of this contention has also been placed on judgment of this Court in Dakshin Haryana Bill Vitran Nigam Limited, Punchkula and others versus Poonam Vashisth, 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 677.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - L N Mittal - Full Document

Dakshini Haryanan Bijli Vitran Nigam ... vs M/S Ganesh Floor Mills on 28 July, 2016

The bar of Civil Court jurisdiction is applicable where dispute fall within the purview of Section 126 of the Act. If the demand is based on an allegation of theft of energy, the issue and contemplated action do not fall under the purview of Section 126 of the Act and Civil Court has got all the jurisdiction. [15]. Reference can be made to Executive Engineer and another Vs. M/s Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, 2012(1) Law Herald (SC) 205, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Vs. Poonam Vashisht, 2009(2) CivCC 131 and decision given in RSA No.4054 of 2013 titled as Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., and others Vs. M/s Sirohi Medical Centre. [16]. In view of aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the substantial questions as poised for consideration do not arise in the present appeal as the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be held to be perverse or the result of any misreading of evidence. Consequently, this appeal is found to be totally bereft of merits and the same is dismissed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - R M Singh - Full Document

Sabir Ali vs The State Of U.P. Thru. The Secy. Home ... on 16 February, 2024

7. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited v. Poonam Vashisth, 2008 SCC OnLine P&H 1515, wherein it was held that the rules require that to prove the theft of electricity it was the basic requirement that the meter must have been checked from the concerned laboratory.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mangat Singh vs Unknown on 6 September, 2012

Court in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Panchkula and others v. Poonam Vashisth, 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 677. In the said case, admittedly the dispute was not under Section 126 of the Act and no plea regarding bar of jurisdiction had been taken by the Electricity Corporation in the Courts below. In those circumstances, this Court held that the suit was maintainable. The said judgment is, however, completely distinguishable. Consequently, finding no fault with the impugned order of the trial Court, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1