Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.39 seconds)
Mrs. M. Haseena Begum vs The Chairman on 14 July, 2020 cites

Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs Ashalata S. Guram on 25 September, 1986

The effect of a non obstante clause was explained by this Court in Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram.3 It was held that : – “69. A clause beginning with the expression ‘notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in some particular provision in the Act or in some particular Act or in any law for the time being in force, or in any contract’ is more often than not appended to a section in the beginning with a view to give the enacting part of the section in case of conflict an overriding effect over the provision of the Act or the contract mentioned in the non-obstante clause. It is equivalent to saying that in spite of the provision of the Act or any other Act mentioned in the non-obstante clause or any contract or document mentioned the enactment following it will have its full operation or that the provisions embraced in the non- obstante clause would not be an impediment for an operation of the enactment.” (emphasis supplied) http://www.judis.nic.in 7/16 W.P.No.9170 of 2020 and WMP.No.11185 & 11186 of 2020 6.6. The liability to pay arises on the consumption of electricity. The obligation to pay would arise when the bill is issued by the licensee company, quantifying the charges to be paid.
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 398 - S Mukharji - Full Document

M/S. Swastic Industries vs Maharashtra State Electricity Board on 24 January, 1997

The Standing Committee further opined that a restriction has been added for recovery of arrears pertaining to the period prior to two years from consumers, unless the arrears have been continuously shown in the bills. Justifying the addition of this restriction, the Ministry of Power submitted that : “It has been considered necessary to provide for such a restriction to protect the consumers from arbitrary billings.” 7.2 In Swastic Industries v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board,4 this Court while interpreting Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 held that : – “5. It would, thus, be clear that the right to recover the charges is one part of it and right to discontinue supply of electrical energy to the consumer who neglects to pay charges is another part of it.” (emphasis supplied) 7.3 Sub-section (1) of Section 56 confers a statutory right to the licensee company to disconnect the supply of electricity, if the consumer neglects to pay the electricity dues.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 54 - Full Document

Mahabir Kishore & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 July, 1989

In Mahabir Kishore and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh,5 this Court held that :– “Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides that in the case of a suit for relief on the ground of mistake, the period of limitation does not begin to run until the plaintiff had discovered the mistake or could with reasonable diligence, have discovered it. In a case where payment has been made under a mistake of law as contrasted with a mistake of fact, generally the mistake become known to the party only when a court makes a declaration as to the invalidity of the law. Though a party could, with reasonable diligence, discover a mistake of fact even before a court makes a pronouncement, it is seldom that a person can, even with reasonable diligence, discover a mistake of law before a judgment adjudging the validity of the law.” (emphasis supplied) In the present case, the period of limitation would commence from the date of discovery of the mistake i.e. 18.03.2014. The licensee company may take recourse to any remedy available in law for recovery of the additional demand, but is barred from taking recourse to disconnection of supply of electricity under sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 176 - K N Saikia - Full Document
1