Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.66 seconds)Section 63 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Article 298 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 77 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bank Of India & Anr vs K.Mohandas & Ors on 27 March, 2009
6. The respondent refers to Section 2(46) of the Electricity Act, 2003
which defines the expression "notification" to mean a notification published
in the Official Gazette. It argues that the PPAs entered between the
respondent MSEDCL and the appellants have been executed and approved
Appeal Nos. 118 of 2021 and 40 of 2022 Page 7 of 15
under Section 63 and, therefore, a word not defined in the PPA (which
includes the expression "notification") will have to be understood in the same
sense as provided under the Electricity Act. It submits that on a plain reading
of the relevant clause on change in law as set out in the PPA, it is clear that
a price notification of the kind issued by Coal India is not a "notification"
issued pursuant to or under any law and nor can it be described as an
"interpretation of law". Reliance is placed on Eera Vs. State (NCT of Delhi
(2017) 15 SCC 133; Central Bank of India Vs. State of Kerala (2009) 4 SCC
94; and Bank of India Vs. K. Mohandas (2009) 5 SCC 313, to argue that for
true construction of the contractual clauses, only the plain and reasonable
meaning emanating therefrom has to be adopted particularly when there is
no ambiguity in contractual terms.
M/S Ashoka Smokeless Coal Ind. P. Ltd. & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 December, 2006
8. In our considered opinion, the view taken by the respondent
Commission on, and the opposition by the respondent distribution licensee
to, the claim for compensation on account of levy of EFC as change in law
event bought in by Coal India is unfair and unjust. It is well settled that Coal
India manages coal mines in India in terms of Coal Mines (Nationalization)
Act, 1973, it having been conferred with the statutory power to determine the
prices of coal. Reference is rightly made in this context to Colliery Control
Order 2000, Colliery Rules 2004 and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported as Ashok Smokeless Cool India (P) Ltd v Union of India (2007) 2
SCC 640. By virtue of its position, Coal India enjoys monopoly over coal, it
thus rightly having been referred to as an alter ego of the State.
M/S. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs Union Of India And Anr on 28 April, 2004
Similarly, in Kusum Ingots & Alloys v. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 254
executive instructions without any statutory backing were also considered as
"law". That Coal India is Government instrumentality and the notifications,
circulars, etc.
Harla vs The State Of Rajasthan on 24 September, 1951
10. As observed earlier, the publication of notification or circular in gazette
cannot be invariably a pre-requisite for an instrument to have a force of law.
The trappings of law do not come by virtue of publication which facilitates
only dissemination of knowledge of law, statutes, etc. [Harla vs. The State of
Rajasthan (AIR 1951 SC 467)].
Gulf Goans Hotels Co. Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 September, 2014
12. We do not have the least doubt that the Coal India circular on EFC
fulfills all the requisite characteristics of "law" and, therefore, does have the
"force of law" so as to be accepted as change in law event giving rise to a
legitimate claim for compensation in favor of the appellants. The notification
admittedly applies in rem, there being no element of mutuality. The price
notification is issued by Coal India which is not a party to the PPA. It is a
statutory levy. It binds the conduct of the parties nonetheless since it has
been issued in mandatory terms, the binding nature of the instrument itself
being sufficient to add the element of "force of law". [Gulf Goans Hotels Co.
Ltd v. Union of India (2014) 10 SCC 673; Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram
Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi (1975) 1 SCC 421 and Bengal Nagpur Cotton
Mill Ltd v. Board of Revenue (1964) 4 SCR 190].
Sukhdev Singh & Ors vs Bagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi And ... on 21 February, 1975
12. We do not have the least doubt that the Coal India circular on EFC
fulfills all the requisite characteristics of "law" and, therefore, does have the
"force of law" so as to be accepted as change in law event giving rise to a
legitimate claim for compensation in favor of the appellants. The notification
admittedly applies in rem, there being no element of mutuality. The price
notification is issued by Coal India which is not a party to the PPA. It is a
statutory levy. It binds the conduct of the parties nonetheless since it has
been issued in mandatory terms, the binding nature of the instrument itself
being sufficient to add the element of "force of law". [Gulf Goans Hotels Co.
Ltd v. Union of India (2014) 10 SCC 673; Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram
Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi (1975) 1 SCC 421 and Bengal Nagpur Cotton
Mill Ltd v. Board of Revenue (1964) 4 SCR 190].