Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing Raipur (Rakhial) Commercial Co-Op ... vs Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. And Anr. on 31 August, 2005

Jay Mahakali Infrasturcture Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. on 7 February, 2006

10. It is the submission on behalf of the respondent that so far as electricity charges are concerned, even if it has become time-barred the same is recoverable by the Electricity Company at any time and the same can be considered at the time of consideration of the application for reconnection and/or fresh connection with regard to the property in question. It is required to be noted that for the purpose of recovery of any dues and/or charges towards supply of electricity, the Electricity Company is required to file Civil Suit within the time prescribed under the Limitation Act. It is also required to be noted that the subsequent purchaser is called upon to make payment of dues of the erstwhile owner and therefore the subsequent purchaser will step in the shoe of the erstwhile owner. If the Electricity Company cannot recover the dues against the erstwhile owner, how they can be permitted to recover the said dues from the subsequent purchaser. Even if Condition No. 2-J is held to be applicable and the dues of the erstwhile owner can be recovered from the subsequent purchaser, in that case also it cannot be said that any dues can be recovered from the subsequent purchaser. The dues which is recoverable and only the legal dues which is capable of being recovered only can be recovered from the subsequent purchaser. The dues which have become time barred cannot be said to be legally recoverable and therefore the respondent company cannot be permitted to recover the dues which have become time barred from the subsequent purchaser under the guise of Condition No. 2-J. As stated above, the electricity connection was permanently disconnected on 1.6.1977 and therefore the dues must be prior to May 1997 which are sought to be recovered by the respondent Electricity Company in the year 2004/2005. In view of the above, the insistence on the part of the respondent Company to pay the dues of the erstwhile owner by the subsequent purchaser, i.e., the petitioners as a condition precedent either to have reconnection and/or fresh connection cannot be sustained and therefore it is held that the respondent Company cannot take shelter of the provisions of Condition No.2-J of the Conditions of Supply and miscellaneous charges in order to transfer the burden of arrears of the previous owner, i.e., arrears which have become time-barred on the new owners. As the petitioners are to succeed on this ground alone, and considering Condition No.2-J of the Conditions of Supply and miscellaneous charges is applicable, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the respondent cannot be permitted to recover the dues of the erstwhile owner from the subsequent purchaser, i.e. The petitioners herein as the dues have become time-barred, and therefore all the other questions with regard to the consequences of the new Electricity Act of 2003 and new Electricity Supply Code and/or whether in view of the G.E.B., not being in existence and other new companies have come into existence, whether Condition No. 2(J) would be applicable to them or not, and other questions which are argued are kept open and this Court is not dealing with the same on merits.
Gujarat High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - M R Shah - Full Document

Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd vs Jay Mahakali Indrasturcture Pvt. Ltd & on 4 April, 2014

6. Mr. Kunal Vyas learned counsel appearing for  Mr.   Amar   Bhatt   for   the   respondent­Company  supported   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   of  learned   single   Judge   and   submitted   that   the  principle rendered in Raipur (Rakhial) Commercial   Co­op.   Housing   Society   Ltd.   and   another   v.   Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd's case (supra),   by   relying   upon   which   the   learned   single   Judge  passed   the   impugned   judgment,   was   challenged   in  LPA No.685/2006, which was rejected vide judgment  and  order  dated  01.05.2006.
Gujarat High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - K Jhaveri - Full Document

Bhavesh vs Paschim on 3 December, 2010

"11.5 The decision relied upon by the learned advocate for the respondent in Letters Patent Appeal No. 691 of 2003 and group matters shall not apply to the case on hand, since in the present case there is no condition/agreement between the parties to the effect that the purchaser is liable to pay the outstanding dues of the respondent Company if any owed by the Company under liquidation. In the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench, the parties were bound by the condition, namely Condition No. 2(j), formulated by the Board. Hence, I am afraid that the said decision also cannot come to the rescue of the respondent on account of the absence of such a condition. Such a condition would have been applicable provided that the same was accepted by the previous owners of the premises in question. In the present case, no such condition was accepted by the previous owners of the said premises."
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - K M Thaker - Full Document

Asst Cit 1 (3)(2), Mumbai vs M/S Janakalyn Sahakari Bank Ltd., ... on 6 January, 2022

So, far as, the reliance upon the decision in Kashmir trading Company vs DCIT and Ahmadabad Electricity Company Ltd. (supra), the decision from the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and Gujarat High Court are concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court, Later on in T.R. F. Ltd. Vs. CIT 323 ITR 397(SC), considering the provision of section 36(1)(vii ), prior to April,1989 and post amendment held that the debt in fact has become irrecoverable. Mere written off in its accounts is enough, thus, following the aforesaid decision from Hon'ble Apex Court, in principle, we affirm the stand of the Ld. CIT(Appeal), resulting into dismissal of this ground of the revenue."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited ... vs Govindbhai Kanabhai Kodiyatar on 7 November, 2025

8.4 Consideration of amendment in clause 4.1.11 would not arise in the present case as PGVCL has already filed the suit against the person, who was the tenant of the property previously owned by some third party and which is subsequently purchased by the plaintiff. This suit was also decreed but the Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 22:17:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/349/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/11/2025 undefined PGVCL find difficulty in executing the decree, but this could not be the reason to file a second suit against the subsequent purchaser on same factual foundation, more particularly when the electricity connection is different and the electricity connection in favor of the plaintiff was released without any hindrance by the PGVCL and further, when plaintiff is regularly paying the bills generated by the PGVCL, and therefore, he cannot be made responsible to pay the amount, which is alleged against the defaulter, who was in possession of the property previously. In fact, what appears that the suit notices were just intending to execute the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 46 of 1997, whereby the plaintiff was not the party and no decree was passed against him. Therefore, the notices since their very inception, were void, and rightly had been cancelled by the learned trial Court, referring to the judgment in the case of Raipur (Rakhial) Commercial Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. v. Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd., reported in 2005 (3) GLR 2689, more particularly referring para 11 to 14 thereof.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1