Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (1.07 seconds)
Documents citing Orissa State Electricity Board And ... vs M/S. Ipi Steel Ltd. Etc on 21 April, 1995

M/S Raymond Limited & Anr., Etc. Etc vs Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board & ... on 16 November, 2000

Adverting to the actual grievance of the consumer in that case that where the cut in supply, be it even for the reason of an order passed by the Government under Section 22 B of the 1910 Act, is only to the extent of half of the contract demand, it was held that during such periods of restricted supply the consumer had to pay the energy charges for the actual consumption plus maximum demand charges for the maximum demand availed of by him at the rate prescribed in the agreement. As in the cases before us, it seems to have been projected there also that even during the periods of restricted supply there were frequent cuts and break downs as well as irregular supply and the Board cannot levy full demand charges merely because in any thirty minute period in a given month, the power is availed at the maximum demand level, and that except the actual consumption charges nothing further, particularly the full demand charges could be collected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 41 - Full Document

West Bengal State Electricity Board And ... vs Siddharta Ferro Alloys Ltd. And Others on 29 January, 1997

In Orissa State Electrict Board v. I.P.I. Steel Ltd. (supra) the effect of the order issued under Section 22B was a 50 per cent cut in the maximum demand. The Board gave an option to the consumer in the matter of utilisation of 50 per cent allowed to him. It was open to him to avail of the maximum demand every month but in such a case he could run his factory only for six months. If, however, the consumer wanted to operate his plant for 12 months in the year, he had to reduce his maximum demand to half of his maximum demand allowed under the agreement. It was equally open to the consumer to distribute maximum demand permitted to him in such a manner that his plaint works for nine months. In the present case the contract remains suspended for 4 hours everyday during the subsistence of the order. In that case the Supreme Court observed, "in no event, consumer is made to pay maximum demand charges for more than what he actually availed. As stated above, the order of limitation is that he must have remained within the fifty per cent quota allowed to him during the year of restriction. We are unable to see any arbitrariness in the said proviso. It means and says that during such period of restricted supply, the consumer pays the energy charges for the actual consumption plus maximum demand charges for the maximum demand availed by him at the rate prescribed in the agreement." In this case too, the consumer has been asked to pay the energy charges for the actual consumption plus maximum demand charges for the maximum demand available by him during the period when no restriction was imposed.
Calcutta High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - B Ghosh - Full Document

K.R. Alloy'S Ltd. vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2005

8. Counsel for the petitioners in support of his contentions placed reliance on the decisions in Northern India Iron and Steel Co. v. State of Haryana, (1976) 2 SCC 877, Raymond Ltd. v. M.P. Electricity Board, (2001) 1 SCC 534, Orissa State Electricity Board v. IPI Steel Ltd., (1995) 4 SCC 320, Man Industrial Corporation v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, AIR 1986 Raj. 137, Mukand Iron & Steel Works Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, AIR 1982 Bom.
Kerala High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Chandra Shekhar Saxena vs Director Of Education (Basic) And Anr. on 4 November, 1996

Shri Dwivedi has placed reliance in cases : Jagendra Kumar v, State of U. P., (1994) 4 SCC 260, Koteshwar Mittal Kamath v. K. Rangappa Raliga and Company, AIR 1959 SC 504, Nelson Motis v. Union of India and Anr., (1992) 4 SCC 711, State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. v. M.C. Dewell and Co. and Ors., JT 1996 (3) SC 079, Fateh Chand Himmatlal and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 1825, Orissa State Electricity Board and Anr. v. I.P.I. Steel Ltd.
Allahabad High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 10 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

Bhilai Rerollers And Others vs Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board And ... on 19 August, 2003

16. We have carefully considered the submissions on behalf of parties on either side. This Court, in the decision reported in Orissa State Electricity Board case (supra), though in dealing with the rights of the Electricity Board for enforcing payment of maximum demand charges and minimum monthly charges noticed about the utility of the MDI meter also called "trivector meter" and observed as hereunder at para 10:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 45 - Full Document

Hindalco vs Gujarat on 21 October, 2008

Judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court is challenged before the Apex Court by the petitioners before the AP Electricity Regulatory Commission, which is distinguished by the other side. However, the Apex Court has not granted stay against the operation and effect of the said judgment. Here, it is relevant to note that there is a finding of the appellate forum where legitimacy of POC had come up for scrutiny.
Gujarat High Court Cites 75 - Cited by 0 - C K Buch - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next