Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.36 seconds)
Chhatisgarh State Power Distribution ... vs Chattisgarh State Elect.Reg.Commn. on 12 May, 2022
cites
Section 2 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Section 42 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
The Electricity Act, 2003
Section 3 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
The Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation And ... vs Nilaybhai R. Thakore And Another on 13 October, 1999
24. It is a settled position of law that the interpretation
which advances the object and purpose of the Act, has to be
preferred. A reliance in this respect can be placed on the
judgments of this Court in the cases of Administrator,
Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur v. Dattatraya
Dahankar, Advocate and Another2, S. Gopal Reddy v.
2 (1992) 1 SCC 361
17
State of A.P.3 and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
and Another v. Nilaybhai R. Thakore and Another4.
Section 30 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Administrator Municipal Corporation, ... vs Dattatraya Dahankar And Another on 5 December, 1991
24. It is a settled position of law that the interpretation
which advances the object and purpose of the Act, has to be
preferred. A reliance in this respect can be placed on the
judgments of this Court in the cases of Administrator,
Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur v. Dattatraya
Dahankar, Advocate and Another2, S. Gopal Reddy v.
2 (1992) 1 SCC 361
17
State of A.P.3 and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
and Another v. Nilaybhai R. Thakore and Another4.
Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs M/S Jsw Steel Limited on 10 December, 2021
8. Shri Nath submitted that the Commission, as well as
the APTEL, has rightly construed the provisions of the said
Act and the said Rules. He submitted, that this Court, in the
case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
Company Limited v. JSW Steel Limited and Others 1, has
held that no permission is required from the Commission for
supply of electricity for its own use. He further submitted
1 (2022) 2 SCC 742
5
that this Court has also held that insofar as captive users are
concerned, they are not liable to pay the additional surcharge
under Section 42(4) of the said Act.
1