Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing Rajesh vs K.S.E.B. on 20 January, 2006

T.Santhamma vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 4 March, 2009

Learned standing counsel would then point out a later Division Bench decision of this Court in Rajesh v. K.S.E.B. (2006 (1) KLT 686). Therein, the Division Bench distinguished the earlier Division Bench on the ground that in the facts of the earlier Division Bench decision, that was a case where the Minimum WPC.2878/09 P 5 Guarantee Agreement stood on its own and without the support of enabling provisions in the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy Regulations. In other words, the distinguishing feature in the facts of the latter case was that not only was there a Minimum Guarantee Agreement executed by the party, but the Minimum Guarantee Agreement contained a provision which predicated the operation of the subordinate legislation in the form of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy Regulations, 1990. This is how the later Division Bench took the view that even after disconnection, it is open to the Board to proceed to recover the amounts due under the Minimum Guarantee Agreement. The Court held as follows:
Kerala High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - K Joseph - Full Document

Kerala State Electricity Board vs Balachandran on 29 January, 2024

14. This question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajesh v. K.S.E.B. (2006 KHC 207). In Rajesh, the Division Bench held that the object of the execution of the agreement is to ensure that minimum revenue required is forthcoming for unremunerative works under the minimum guarantee agreement, and therefore, power is conferred on the Assistant Executive Engineer to review whether the line has become self remunerative and once it is self remunerative it is also open to the Board to waive the minimum guarantee amount guaranteed in the event of which consumer need only pay for the actual consumption of energy.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - K Babu - Full Document

K.P.Unnikrishnan vs Assistant Executive Engineer on 7 November, 2008

4. As far as this question is concerned, the matter is covered against the petitioner by virtue of the decision reported in Rajesh v. WPC.32727/2008. 2 K.S.E.B. (2006(1) K.L.T. 686). As per the same, the party will be liable to continue to pay the amount under the minimum guarantee agreement. However, since petitioner has preferred Ext.P1, a decision has to be taken on the question as to whether the line has become self remunerative.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - K Joseph - Full Document

Siyad Khan vs Kerala State Electricity Board Rep; By on 31 March, 2009

227). I feel that this issue is squarely covered against the petitioner by virtue of the decision in Rajesh Vs. K.S.E.B. (2006 (1) KLT 686). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interest charged is exorbitant and unconscionable. Learned standing counsel points out that interest at 24% upto November, 2008 is calculated. He further submits that the issue is actually covered by Ext.P5 judgment as after referring to the argument based on interest and noting the submission of the standing counsel that the rate of interest is one provided in the agreement, petitioner was given time to pay the amount. Of course, in Ext.P5 there is a direction to charge interest in accordance with law. The only ground taken is that the interest is exorbitant and unconscionable and cannot be justified. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a driver and he has financial difficulties. Considering all these aspects, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to pay off the amount in Ext.P7 in three equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 30.4.2009 and the further instalments on or before the 30th day of every WPC No.6413/2009 -3- succeeding month. Interest will accrue in accordance with law. If the petitioner does not pay any single instalment, he will loose the benefit of this judgment and the respondents will be free to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - K Joseph - Full Document

Kerala State Electicity Board vs K.J.Sebastian on 8 April, 2008

4. We find that it is not disputed that the complainant obtained electric connection after executing the minimum guarantee agreement. It is also not disputed that as per the minimum guarantee agreement the complainant is bound to remit the guaranteed amount whether the complainant has consumed electricity or not. In the instant case for the period after the date of disconnection the appellant has claimed only minimum guarantee amount and not the electric charges as per existing slab. Admittedly the date of disconnection is 12/91. Thereafter till the date of dismantling the appellant has only claimed the minimum guarantee amount. It would altogether come Rs.2,497.34 + penal interest of Rs.2,730; altogether Rs.5,227.35. The finding of the Forum that the appellants have no authority to disconnect electric supply cannot be upheld. The counsel also relied on the decision in Rajesh Vs K.S.E.B, 2006 (1)KLT 686 of the High Court of Kerala. Therein it has been held that the consumer is liable to pay minimum charge even after the service is disconnected. In the circumstances and in the light of the above decision we find that the order of the Forum directing the appellant to reconnect the supply cannot sustained. The order of the Forum is set aside. The complainant is liable to pay the bill amount of Rs.5,277.35. The complainant is directed to pay the amount within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. Only if the amount is not paid within the above period the opposite parties will be entitled to realize the above amount with interest @ 12% from the date of this order.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1