Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 124 (0.04 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Hyderabad Vanaspathi Limited vs Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board ... on 1 April, 1998

The Superintending Engineer vs Annamalai Cotton Mills P. Limited on 12 January, 2009

Moreover, the Clause 8.00 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity speaks of dishonest abstraction or use of energy as deemed to have committed theft and it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the Andra Pradesh Terms and Conditions of Electricity Supply speaks of pilferage and malpractice, which are qualitatively distinct from theft and therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hyderabad Vanaspathi Limited V. A.P. State Electricity Board and others (1998) 4 SCC 470 will not apply to the facts of our present case, is not accepted by this Court.
Madras High Court Cites 82 - Cited by 1 - M Venugopal - Full Document

Hind Re-Rolling Industries vs Apseb And Ors. on 12 August, 2004

The Court referred to various decisions of the Supreme Court in Bisra Lime Stone Company Limited v. Orissa State Electricity Board,, Jagadamba Paper Industries (P) Ltd. v. Haryana State Electricity Board, , Rohtas Industries v. Bihar State Electricity Board, , Kerala State Electricty Board v. S.N.Govinda Prabhu (supra), Dr. Smt Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Malta Vidyalaya, Seethapur, , Hyderabad Engineering Works Ltd v. A.P. State Electricity Board, , Bihar State Electricity Board v. M/s. Green Rubber Industries, , Sri Seetharam Sugar Company Ltd v. Union of India, , Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. A.P. State Electricity Board, , Bihar State Electricity Board v. Usha Martin Industries, , and Hyderabad Vanaspati Ltd. v. A.P.State Electricity Board (supra).
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Assistant Engineer vs Raja Metal Corporation on 31 January, 2019

16.It had been very clearly laid down in 1998 4 SCC 476, Hyderabad Vanaspathy Ltd. Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board & Others, http://www.judis.nic.in 10 wherein it was contended, that the above condition was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, that “41.What remains to be considered is whether clause 39 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Under this head, the argument of learned counsel for the consumers is that the provisions in the clause are wholly unreasonable and against the principles of natural justice. According to them, the clause enables the officers to disconnect the service on a suspicion of malpractice and the consumer has to pay 50% of the provisional assessment amount before getting it restored. It is also contended that the officials of the Board are enabled to judge its own cause and the doctrine of bias will apply.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - C V Karthikeyan - Full Document

Bipin Laxmanbhai Kathiriya vs Gujarat State Financial Corporation on 18 August, 2023

This Court in M/s Hyderabad Vanaspati Ltd. Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and others [(1998) 2 S.C.R. 620] has held that the Terms and Conditions for Supply of Electricity notified by the Electricity Board under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act are statutory and the fact that an individual agreement is entered into by the Board with each consumer does not make the terms and conditions for supply contractual. This Court has also held that though the Electricity Board is not a commercial entity, it is entitled to regulate its tariff in such a way that a reasonable profit is left with it so as to enable it to undertake the activities necessary. If in that process in respect of recovery of dues in respect of a premises to which supply had been made, a condition is inserted for its recovery from a transferee of Page 35 of 61 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:32:54 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18942/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023 undefined the undertaking, it cannot ex facie be said to be unauthorized or unreasonable. Of course, still a court may be able to strike it down as being violative of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India. But that is a different matter. In this case, the High Court has not undertaken that exercise.
Gujarat High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - B D Karia - Full Document

Klayman Porcelains Limited vs Superintending Engineer, Operation, ... on 31 August, 2001

In Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd. v. A.P. State Electricity Board (supra) the Apex Court was considering the application of clause 39 of conditions of supply introduced by reason of B.P. Ms. No.690, dated 17-9-1975. Clause 39 provided for matters connected with pilferage of electrical energy. The Apex Court found that clause 3 does not violate any provisions of the 1948 Act, It observed:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 56 - Cited by 3 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Hotel Satyaketu vs Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd on 20 April, 2017

10. So far as the question about validity of the condition No.2(j) is concerned, as stated above, Division Bench of this Court has already held it to be valid and found the same as having statutory character. Therefore, in light of the judgment in the case of Paramount Polymers Ltd. (supra), since the petitioner of the first petition had made application subsequent to introduction of condition No.2(j), insistence of the Company for payment of the past dues to grant electric connection to the petitioner, though it is an auction purchaser, cannot be said to be illegal. Therefore, no relief could be granted to the petitioner. The first petition is therefore, required to be dismissed. However, learned advocate Mr. Patel submitted that the erstwhile Board- the Vij Company has already filed suit, being Civil Suit No.867 of 1999, for recovery of the electricity dues from the erstwhile consumer of Rs.8,86,307.56 and therefore, the Court may observe that if the Board- the company succeeded in the suit for recovery of the above-said dues, the Board shall refund the amount recovered from the petitioner for granting electric connection to the petitioner. Learned advocate Ms. Bhaya fairly stated that as and when the company succeeds in the suit and recovers dues from the erstwhile consumer, the company is to refund the amount paid by the petitioner, to the petitioner.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - C L Soni - Full Document

Bhojabhai Savdasbhai Mokariya vs Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd on 15 October, 2025

It is also held by the Supreme Court in HYDERABAD VANASPATHI LTD. v. A.PSTATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & OTHERS [(1998) 4 SCC 470] that the Board in performance of a supplementary duty supplied energy on certain specific terms and conditions framed in exercise of a supplementary power and undoubtedly they were supplementary in character. It is also held that for ascertaining the loss and fixing the compensation, a uniform procedure has to be framed and a machinery constituted and if a consumer is found indulging in any malpractice etc., he has to pay additional charges as may be levied by the Board. Thus, the proper remedy for the appellant was to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority as provided in the Conditions of Supply of Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 02:29:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/279/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined Electrical Energy and the appellant having admittedly not availed of that remedy, it was not open for him to take up the same contentions by way of defence in the suit filed for recovery of the dues assessed in accordance with the Conditions of Supply. The trial Court has not committed any error in reaching its findings in favour of the respondent for the reasons given by it with which we fully agree".
Gujarat High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next