Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (1.89 seconds)
Documents citing Maharashtra State Electricity Board vs Kalyan Borough Municipality & Anr on 8 February, 1968

State vs . Kalu @ Kalyan @ Kailash on 5 April, 2011

1. The present case was registered against the accused persons on the allegations that on 03.12.1997 when complainant SI Om Prakash along with Ct. Ombir was coming from Madhu Vihar towards Dabri pul on patrolling then at about 1.30 am (night), they saw two persons hitting the locks on the closed shutter of C-88, Rohit General Store with rods. They were apprehended while they tried to run and on inquiry one person having about 1 feet. 9 inch rod told his name Kalu @ Kailash @ Kalyan and second having 1 feet 3 inch rod told his name as Rakesh. On checking one thaila was 3 FIR No:826/1997 State Vs. Kalu @ Kalyan @ Kailash recovered from Rakesh containing 26 wrist watches 2 calculators, 4 photo cameras regarding which no satisfactory answer was given by the accused persons and it appeared that those things may be stolen property. The FIR u/s 457/380/511 IPC was registered against accused persons and after investigation challan was filed against both accused persons.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) Represented By The ... vs India Cements Ltd. And Ors. on 23 April, 1971

153. We have already referred in some other context to the decision of the Supreme Court in Madras State Electricity Board v. Kalyan Municipality (1969) 1 S.C.J. 38 : A.I.R. 968 S.C. 991, in which it was laid down that where a uniform tariff is fixed for supply of electrical energy, there is no question of undue preference in favour of one as against the other and that even if there was any inequality arbitrariness brought about, there was sufficient justification for the same.
Madras High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yusuf Kalyan vs State Of Punjab on 25 September, 2024

11. Accordingly,, in view of the discussion as made above and also in view of the ratio of law as laid down in above cited authorities authorities,, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.04.2015 (Annexure P-2), P passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar in case titled as State vs. Yousuf Kalyan, Kalyan arising out of FIR No. 72 dated 25.05.2014, registered under Sections 15, 18 and 21 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Division 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 27-09-2024 05:39:10 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126998 CRM-M-17094 17094-2024 (O&M) -5--
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Bihar State Electricity Board And ... vs Jawahar Lal And Ors. on 5 April, 1976

9. In my view, the above observations of their Lordships do not support the contention of the learned Solicitor-General that in the instant case the issue involved before the trial court was not justiciable. It may be noticed that their Lordships were dealing with the arbitration clause as contemplated in Section 76 of the Act, as also the provisions of Section 49 which stood prior to the amending Act 30 of 1966. Reference may be made to Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. Kalyan Borough Municipality, (AIR 1968 SC 991) corresponding to (1968) 3 SCR 137. In that case appellant Maharashtra State Electricity Board, which took over the supply of electrical energy from the original licensee, increased the tariff and fixed a uniform tariff for all its consumers. The respondents-consumers filed petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that (a) Section 49 of the Act did not permit the Board to frame uniform tariffs for consumers in compact areas as well as consumers in sparse areas, so as to require the former to pay a part of the cost involved in the supply of electricity to the latter; and (b) if Section 49 gave such power to the Board it was ultra vires and void, as it offended the provisions of the Constitution. The High Court allowed the Writ Petitions. Thereafter the Board filed appeals to the Supreme Court and during their pendency Section 49 was amended retrospectively by the Electricity (Supply) Amendment Act 1966 and by Section 24 of the Amendment Act the imposition and collection of charges under Section 49 was validated. Section 79 of the Act provides power to make regulations, Clause (j) whereof provides for the principles governing the supply of electricity by the Board to persons other than licensees under Section 49. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in that case at page 156 observed thus:
Patna High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Shriram Bearing Limited, Ranchi Etc. ... vs Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna ... on 8 December, 1981

"Tariff rates of L. T. Industrial Service, H. T. Service, E. H. T. Service and Railway Traction Service are subject to fuel surcharge which shall be determined in the following manner i. e., all consumers of the aforesaid categories shall be required to pay fuel surcharge at a rate to be determined every year in accordance with the formula given below, in addition to the other charges as laid down in the Tariff Schedule." Clause 16.7.2 contains formula for determining the fuel surcharge applicable during the financial year in paise per unit. By a mathematical formula the average of fuel surcharge in paise per unit has to be determined taking into account--
Patna High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - N P Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 Next