Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)
Shri Raj Kumar vs Ndpl & Anr. on 1 June, 2011 cites

Mrs. Madhu Garg And Anr. vs North Delhi Power Ltd. [Along With W.P. ... on 9 November, 2005

15. Notwithstanding the aforesaid dicta of the Apex Court in Isha Marbles, the Division Bench of this Court in Madhu Garg (supra) held the purchaser to be liable as a condition for supply of electricity in the property for the dues of his predecessor for the reason of the decision in Isha Marbles turning on the provisions of law applicable in Bihar and finding the position to be different in Delhi. Reference was made to the General Conditions of Supply as applicable in Delhi and prohibiting supply of W.P.(C) No.8802/2006 Page 12 of 19 electricity to an applicant unless he deposits outstanding dues against the premises for which supply is sought. It was thus held that the inadequacy of law commented upon in Isha Marbles had been made up as far as the city of Delhi was concerned. It was thus owing to the specific provision in this regard in force in Delhi that Isha Marbles was not followed.
Delhi High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 41 - V Sen - Full Document

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. on 2 July, 2009

9. A Full Bench of this Court in BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt. Ltd. 161 (2009) DLT 28 while affirming the aforesaid judgment also observed that having regard to the very large number of consumers of electricity, it was necessary to safeguard the W.P.(C) No.8802/2006 Page 8 of 19 interests of the distributor by providing for a right to refuse supply / new connection for non payment of arrears with respect to the premises even of another. It was held that even though the arrears could not legally be recovered from the new owner / occupier but electricity connection to a new owner / occupier could be denied for the reason of arrears.
Delhi High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 58 - S N Aggarwal - Full Document

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

13. The nature and character of the premises in the present case however cannot be equated with the nature and character of premises in relation to which the Division Bench and Full Bench of this Court in Madhu Garg and Saurashtra Colour Tones Pvt. Ltd. respectively held as aforesaid. The premises which this petition is concerned with is accommodation owned by the Government and meant for use of those entitled to Government accommodation. The occupants of the said accommodation do not acquire any title to the accommodation save a right to use and enjoy the same as a licencee of the Government and during the pleasure of the Government. The occupants from time to time of the said accommodation are not successors-in-right or title of the previous occupant as was the case in Madhu Garg and Saurashtra Colour Tones Pvt. Ltd. Rather, the right of such occupant stems from his entitlement to such accommodation, generally as in the present case under the terms of employment. The question which thus arises is whether inspite of such vital difference, the principle of law laid down in Madhu Garg and Saurashtra Colour Tones W.P.(C) No.8802/2006 Page 11 of 19 Pvt. Ltd. would apply to such Government accommodation also.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 54 - Full Document

M/S Isha Marbles vs Bihar State Electricity Board on 3 February, 1995

In this regard, it may be noticed that a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board (1995) 2 SCC 648 had held that the electricity dues are not a charge over the property to which they pertain and a subsequent purchaser of property cannot be called upon to clear the past arrears of his predecessor-in-interest as a precedent to supply of electricity. Ofcourse, it was observed in para 63 of the judgment that such view was being taken owing to inadequacy in law to enforce the liability of previous contracting party against the purchaser.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 194 - S Mohan - Full Document

Haryana State Electricity Board vs M/S. Hanuman Rice Mills Dhanauri & Ors on 20 August, 2010

16. Reference in this regard may also be made to the recent dicta in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hanuman Rice Mills (2010) 9 SCC 145 laying down that electricity arrears do not constitute a charge over the property and because in general law a transferee of premises cannot be made liable for the dues of the previous owner/occupier and further holding that only where the statutory rules and terms and conditions of supply which are statutory in character, authorize the supplier of electricity to demand from the purchaser of a property claiming reconnection or fresh connection of electricity, the arrears due from the previous owner/occupier in regard to supply of electricity to such premises, can the supplier recover the arrears from the purchaser.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 67 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1