Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 93 (0.82 seconds)
Documents citing M.P.E.B. & Others vs Smt. Basantibai on 10 November, 1987

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

tampering with the meter or manipulating the supply line or breaking the body seal of the meter resulting in non-registering of the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply- are the cases which were held to be not covered by Section 26(6) in the case of M.E.B.P. v. Basantibai, (supra) while the provision was held applicable to any case of meter being faulty due to some defect and not registering the actual consumption of electrical energy.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - V C Daga - Full Document

K.S.E.Board vs M.Kamalasanan on 10 August, 2010

15. As noticed earlier, sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the S.A.No.39 of 1996 -:18:- Indian Electricity Act 1910 provides for an adequate and efficacious remedy to a consumer who is aggrieved by the invoices raised by the Electricity Board based on the readings of an allegedly defective meter. As held by the Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Basantibai, (supra) Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. v. U.P.S.E.B, (supra) a dispute between the consumer and the Electricity Board as regards the correctness of a meter can be raised by either of the parties and referred by either of the parties for a decision by the Electrical Inspector. In the instant case, the respondents have no case that the meter has become completely non functional. The case set out by the respondents is that Ext.A4 invoice levying an exorbitant amount as energy charges was raised based on the readings of a faulty meter. Therefore, the remedy of the appellants, in my opinion, was to move the Electrical Inspector as contemplated under sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Electricity Act, 1910 to have the said dispute resolved in the manner indicated therein. Further, the explanation to sub-section (7) provides that a meter shall be deemed to be correct if it registers the amount of energy supplied or the electrical quantity contained in the supply within the prescribed limits of error. It is thus evident that an adjudication of the question as to whether a meter is correct or not involves an enquiry as to whether it registers the amount of energy supplied or the electrical S.A.No.39 of 1996 -:19:- quantity contained in the supply within the prescribed limits of error. It is only after a finding is entered as regards the correctness of the meter that the justifiability of the levy of energy charges based on the readings taken in the meter can be gone into. Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 authorises Electrical Inspector as the authority competent to decide the question whether a meter is correct or not. Sub-section 6 of section 26 also stipulates that except in cases where the Electrical Inspector estimates the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, the register of the meter shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of the amount or quantity of energy consumed by the consumer. In other words, the reading recorded in a meter installed in the premises of a consumer has to be treated as conclusive proof except in the case of fraud and in cases where the Electrical Inspector is called upon to estimate the amount of energy supplied or the electrical quantity contained in the supply. Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, according to me, constitutes the Electrical Inspector to be a special Tribunal to deal with the question as to whether a meter installed in the premises of a consumer of electrical energy is correct or not. The provisions of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 provide an efficacious remedy to an aggrieved consumer, according to whom the meter installed in his premises is S.A.No.39 of 1996 -:20:- incorrect. I, therefore, hold that the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a dispute regarding the correctness of an invoice raised by the Kerala State Electricity Board on the ground that the meter installed in the premises of the consumer is faulty, is impliedly barred by the provisions of section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - P N Ravindran - Full Document

Western Elect.Sup.Co.Of Orissa Ld.& ... vs M/S Baba Baijanath Roller & Flour Mil.Ld on 26 March, 2014

In two decisions of this Court in M.P Electricity Board v. Basantibai [1988 (1) SCC 23] and J.M.D. Alloys Ltd. v. Bihar SEB [2003 (5) SCC 226] it has been held that in cases of tampering or theft or pilferage of electricity, the demand raised falls outside the scope of Section 26 of the Electricity Act. If that is so, neither the limitation period mentioned in Section 26 of the Electricity Act nor the procedure for raising demand for electricity consumed would arise at all. In this view of the matter, that part of the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, directing that there should be a reference to the Electrical Inspector, shall stand set aside. In other respects the order of the High Court shall remain undisturbed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - P C Ghosh - Full Document

Western Elect.Sup.Co.Of Orissa Ld. vs M/S Baba Baijanath Roller & Flour Mil.Ld on 26 March, 2014

In two decisions of this Court in M.P Electricity Board v. Basantibai [1988 (1) SCC 23] and J.M.D. Alloys Ltd. v. Bihar SEB [2003 (5) SCC 226] it has been held that in cases of tampering or theft or pilferage of electricity, the demand raised falls outside the scope of Section 26 of the Electricity Act. If that is so, neither the limitation period mentioned in Section 26 of the Electricity Act nor the procedure for raising demand for electricity consumed would arise at all. In this view of the matter, that part of the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, directing that there should be a reference to the Electrical Inspector, shall stand set aside. In other respects the order of the High Court shall remain undisturbed. The appeal is allowed accordingly."
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - P C Ghosh - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Brihan Mumbai vs Hotel Hill Top International on 24 September, 2003

The decisions of the learned single Judge in Ashok Textiles v. Gujarat Electricity Board and Ors. (supra) as well as in Khurshed Sorabji Cooper v. Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (supra), were in peculiar facts of those cases and in any case the same cannot be said to be laying down the good law in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in Smt. Basantibai's case as well as in the Tata Hydro-Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd.'s case, as also of the Division Bench of this Court in Bharat Barrel's case, which are binding upon this Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - R M Khandeparkar - Full Document

P.S.E.B vs R.V.Steel Rolling Mills on 7 August, 2024

Tampering with the meter or manipulating the supply line or breaking the body seal of the meter resulting in non-registering of the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply - are the cases which were held to be not covered by Section 26(6) in the 15 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 24-08-2024 05:05:31 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:106871 RSA No.2946 of 1994 16 case of Basantibai (supra), while the provision was held applicable to any case of meter being faulty due to some defect and not registering the actual consumption of electrical energy.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - P Jain - Full Document

The Kerala State Electricity Board vs Sri. S.J. Premkumar on 1 December, 2009

Tampering with the meter or manipulating the supply line or breaking the body seal of the meter resulting in non-registering of the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply - are the cases which were held to be not covered by Section 26(6) in the case of Basantibai (supra), while the provision was held applicable to any case of meter being faulty due to some defect and not registering the actual consumption of electrical energy. Similar is the view taken in the case of J.M.D. Alloys Ltd. (supra)."
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Jagan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next