Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 534 (2.50 seconds)
Documents citing State Of U.P. And Ors vs Renusagar Power Co. And Others on 28 July, 1988

Tata Power Company Limited vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory ... on 13 July, 2023

18. The parameters of the High Court's power of judicial review fell for examination in State of U.P. v. Renusagar Power Co., (1988) 4 SCC 59, and reliance was placed by the Supreme Court on its earlier decision in CIT v. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited [(1983) 4 SCC 392 wherein the parameters of the court's power of judicial review of administrative or executive action or decision was dealt with, and it was held that it was settled position that if the action or decision is perverse or is such that no reasonable body of persons, properly informed, could come to or has been arrived at by the authority misdirecting itself by adopting a wrong approach or has been influenced by irrelevant or extraneous matters, the court would be justified in interfering with the same.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 77 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Tata Power Company Limited vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory ... on 25 February, 2009

15) Coming to the law laid down by Supreme Court in State of UP Vs. Renusagar Power Company, the Commission contends that ruling is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Commission contends that TSL may be the end user but it cannot be termed as a captive user. The Commission denies the allegation that no person other than a generating company established with the business objective of generation and sale of electricity were No. of Corrections: Page 17 of 36 Appeal No. 160 of 2007 SH permitted except for captive use. It contends that the permission under section 43(A)(1)(c) was given in cases where there was nexus between the generating company and the purchaser other than the Electricity Board or distribution licensee. However, this sanction, the Commission contends, cannot make the two units as captive generating station. JAPCOL sought permission to install the two units in question. The Commission however, contends that the power generated by TPCL being supplied to TSL, a distribution licensee, will not attract any cross subsidy under section 42(2) of the Electricity Act 2003. The Commission contends that the impugned order does not call for any interference.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tata Steel Ltd. And Tata Power Com. Ltd. vs Jharkhand State Electricity ... on 7 May, 2008

15. Coming to the law laid down by Supreme Court in State of UP v. Renusagar Power Company, the Commission contends that ruling is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Commission contends that TSL may be the end user but it cannot be termed as a captive user. The Commission denies the allegation that no person other than a generating company established with the business objective of generation and sale of electricity were permitted except for captive use. It contends that the permission under Section 43(A)(1)(c) was given in cases where there was nexus between the generating company and the purchaser other than the Electricity Board or distribution licensee. However, this sanction, the Commission contends, cannot make the two units as captive generating station. JAPCOL sought permission to install the two units in question. The Commission however, contends that the power generated by TPCL being supplied to TSL, a distribution licensee, will not attract any cross subsidy under Section 42(2) of the Electricity Act 2003. The Commission contends that the impugned order does not call for any interference.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Charutar Arogya Mandal And Ors. vs Justice R.J. Shah (Retd.) Fee Committee ... on 16 March, 2005

11.1 It was submitted that the Supreme Court had no legislative powers and, therefore, a delegate of the Supreme Court, i.e. the Committee, cannot be discharging a legislative or quasi-legislative function. As held by the Supreme Court in STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. RENUSAGAR POWER COMPANY [AIR 1988 SC 1737], when an authority had power to fix different rates and the function was quasi-legislative in character, the decision in such a case must be arrived at objectively and in consonance with the principles of natural justice. When the power was exercised with reference to a class, it would be in the nature of subordinate legislation, but when the power was exercised with reference to individual, it would be administrative.
Gujarat High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 1 - D H Waghela - Full Document

Balwant Rai Saluja & Anr Etc.Etc vs Air India Ltd.& Ors on 13 November, 2013

27. The corporate veil indisputably can be pierced when the corporate personality is found to be opposed to justice, convenience and interest of the revenue or workman or against public interest. (See CIT v. Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd., Workmen v. Associated Rubber Industry Ltd., New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India, State of U.P. v. Renusagar Power Co., Hussainbhai v. Alath Factory Thezhilali Union and Secy., H.S.E.B. v. Suresh.)” (Emphasis laid by the Court)
Supreme Court of India Cites 58 - Cited by 129 - C K Prasad - Full Document

Croft vs M on 17 February, 2011

After taking into consideration the decided cases on the point whether there was fraudulent movement of goods under which letter of credit was obtained which in turn entitled the bank to file the suit, the Supreme Court held that that point was already decided by decision of the Supreme Court in U.P. Co-operative Federation's case and therefore the allegation of non-supply of goods by the sellers to the buyers did not by itself amount, in law, to a plea of "fraud" as understood in this branch of the law and hence by merely characterising alleged non-movement of goods as "fraud", the bank was not entitled to claim that there was a cause of action based on fraud or misrepresentation. While allowing the appeal, what is emphasised by the Supreme Court is that the question whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated with a view to get out of Order 7, R.11 of the CPC has to be decided with reference to averments made in the plaint and clever drafting creating illusions of cause of action are not permitted in law and a clear right to sue should be shown in the plaint. In view of this decision of the Supreme Court, it is evident that if something purely illusory has been stated with a view to get out of Order 7, R.11 of the CPC by resorting to clever drafting, it cannot be said that the plaint discloses a cause of action and if a clear right to sue is not shown in the plaint, it is liable to be rejected.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - J Patel - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next