Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.44 seconds)Zile Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 7 October, 2004
In the judgment "Zile Singh v. State
of Haryana, (2004) 8 SCC 1), the reliance on which has been placed by the
appellant, it is stated that the intrinsic evidence may be available to show that the
amendment was necessarily intended to have retrospective effect, however, in the
present case, the Connectivity Regulations, 2021 specifically notes that "these
Regulations shall come into force from the date of their publication in the Rajpatra,
Himachal Pradesh" and therefore cannot be considered having retrospective
application/intention, and accordingly, the judgment in Zile Singh has no application
to the facts of the present case. Nevertheless, without further deliberating the
retrospective application of Connectivity Regulation 2021, these Regulations
specifies obligation of the licensee for completion of interconnection facilities only
after receipt of the estimated cost from the Applicant under sub-regulation 5, as
reproduced hereunder:
Section 73 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
M/S Indsil Hydro Power And Manganese ... vs State Of Kerala And Others on 6 September, 2021
34. The reliance on "Indsil Hydro Power v State of Kerala", (2020) 16 SCC 276
is misplaced. The decision was on a Power Purchase Agreement, wherein the
purchasing entity, KSEB was to build the line itself and take power from a particular
date (30 months), thereby creating an implicit reciprocal obligation. Further,
compensation for deemed generation was in fact rejected holding that there was
a policy issue to be decided. In the present case, HPPTCL is not a purchaser of
electricity having any reciprocal obligation to purchase electricity from a particular
date. In fact, the date of commissioning of the generator is not even provided in the
Agreement or the grant for any such implied term.
Section 3 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Special Officer, Amaravathi ... vs D.V. Thirumalaswamy And Ors. on 16 April, 1970
In view of above
deliberations, the reliance placed by the Appellant on the judgements in "Kerala
SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil, (2000) 6 SCC 293 and "Special Officer, Amaravati
Co-operative Sugar Mills, Krishnapuram, Coimbatore District v. D.V.
Thirumalaiswamy & Ors., 1970 SCC OnLine Mad 78 is misplaced and the said
decisions are inapplicable to the facts of the present case