Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 45 (5.90 seconds)
Documents citing Bombay Electric Supply & Transport ... vs Laffans (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 21 April, 2005

Nobile Ice Cream Co. & Anr vs Special Secretary And Appellate ... on 16 April, 2012

Mr Chatterjee has argued that since the defective meter was not produced by WBSEB, the Dep.CEI ought to have rejected the reference; for he could adjudicate the dispute only if the defective meter was produced. For this he has relied on Bombay Electricity Supply & Transport Undertaking v. Laffans (India) (P) Ltd. & Anr., (2005) 4 SCC 327.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - J K Biswas - Full Document

Nirmala Metal Industries vs K.S.E.B. on 7 July, 2006

The scope of the above mentioned section came up for consideration a before the Apex Court in Bombay Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking v. Laffans (India)(P) Ltd. and Anr. . That was a case where in a routine checking it was noticed that the meter was found to be running slow in the consumer's premises. Accordingly the consumer was informed that the meter would be replaced and revised bill would be issued. The new meter installed was also found running slow. That meter was also replaced by another meter and that meter also got burnt and was replaced by another meter and a bill was raised. The consumer disputed the bill. Since the amount was not paid the notice of disconnection was sent which was challenged before the Bombay High Court. Learned single Judge found no infirmity in the claim and dismissed the Writ Petition. Matter was then taken up in appeal. The Division Bench reversed the decision of the learned single Judge and held that if the licensee disputed the correctness of the meter, it should have referred the dispute to the Electrical Inspector as provided in Section 26(6) of the Act and it was for the Electrical Inspector to estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer. The licensee having not referred any such dispute to the Electrical Inspector and consequently no estimate of the energy supplied by it to the consumer having been made, it was not open to the licensee to raise a bill on the basis of average of the past one year's consumption.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 20 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Durga Rice Mill, Rep. By Its Managing ... vs Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board ... on 9 August, 2006

Basantibai's case (1 supra) followed in Bombay Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking (7 supra), thus, makes it clear that the view taken in Southern India Marine Products Company's case (15 supra) represents the correct state of law. Any difference or dispute arising in this regard is a precondition for the applicability of Section 26(6) and the restriction of back-billing to six months applies only for the determination under Section 26(6) but not otherwise, except as may be provided by any provision or principle of law. As such, the facts of the present case need to be analysed understanding the expression "meter is correct" as meaning "no fault or defect in the meter". Notwithstanding the coming into force of the Electricity Act, 2003, in the light of Section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 6 of General Clauses Act, 1897, the rights and obligations of the parties to the present dispute are governed by law as it stood prior to the Electricity Act, 2003 coming into force.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... vs B.P. Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., The ... on 30 March, 2007

The correctness of the said decisions is reiterated by the latest three Judge bench of the Apex Court in the case of Bombay Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking v. Laffans (India) (P) Ltd. . As held by the Apex Court in the said case of Laffans (India)(P) Ltd., the applicability of Section 26(6) is attracted only when the meter is not correct. Section 26(6) will have no applicability (i) if the consumer is found to have committed a fraud with the licensee and thereby illegally extracted the supply of energy preventing or avoiding its recording, or (ii) has resorted to a trick or device whereby the electricity is consumed by the consumer without it being recorded by the meter. In effect the latter class of cases would also be one of fraud.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - V C Daga - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next