Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)
Union Of India vs Electrosteel Castings Ltd. & Anr on 27 February, 2025 cites

Abl International Ltd. & Anr vs Export Credit Guarantee Corportion Of ... on 18 December, 2003

"3. It is clear, therefore, from the aforesaid order dated 22-3-2014 that there is no dispute as to the amount that has to be paid to the appellant. Despite this, when the appellant knocked at the doors of the 15 High Court in a writ petition being Writ Civil No. 25216 of 2014, the impugned judgment dated 2-5-2014 dismissed the writ petition stating that disputed questions of fact arise and that the amount due arises out of a contract. We are afraid the High Court was wholly incorrect inasmuch as there was no disputed question of fact. On the contrary, the amount payable to the appellant is wholly undisputed. Equally, it is well settled that where the State behaves arbitrarily, even in the realm of contract, the High Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (ABL International Ltd. V. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd.)"
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 1154 - Full Document

Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs M/S Jsw Steel Limited on 10 December, 2021

The judgment of the Apex Court in Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs. JSW Steel Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2022) 2 SCC 742, cited by the appellant that the Apex Court has directed the adjustment of the said amount does not appear to have any manner of application in the instant case. In the said report, the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. being the licensee approached the State Commission for MYT Approval for Financial Year 2014-15, provisional truing up of ARR for Financial year 2015-16 and multi-year tariff for 3 rd control period of Financial Year 2016-17 to Financial Year 2019-20. The respondent therein resisted the claim and the Commission held that the additional surcharge leviable under Section 42(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not applicable to captive users to the extent of their self-consumption from such plants. It was further held that additional surcharge shall be applicable to all consumers who avail open access to receive supply from sources other than the distribution licensee. The order of the said Commission was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal and was allowed with the 10 categorical finding that the group of captive consumers are not liable to pay additional surcharge to the distribution licensee. The question that fell for consideration was whether the captive consumers/ captive users are liable to pay the additional charges under Section 42(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Apex Court after considering the definition of a consumer and the provisions contained in Section 42(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003 held that the captive consumer/captive users constitute a separate class other than the consumers defined under Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act and, therefore, shall not be subject to any additional surcharge levied under the said Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 6 - M R Shah - Full Document

U.P. Pollution Control Board And Others vs M/S. Kanoria Industrial Ltd. And ... on 24 January, 2001

"25. The learned counsel for the respondent then contended that though the principal prayer in the writ petition is for quashing the letters of repudiation by the first respondent, in fact the writ petition is one for a "money claim" which cannot be granted in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, this argument of the learned counsel also cannot be accepted in its absolute terms. This Court in the case of U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Kanoria Industrial Ltd. While dealing with the question of refund of money in a writ petition after discussing the earlier case-law on this subject held: (SCC pp. 556-58, paras 12 & 16-17) "12. In the para extracted above, in a similar situation as arising in the present cases relating to the very question of refund, while answering the said question affirmatively, this Court pointed out that the courts have made distinction between those cases where a claimant approached a High Court seeking relief of obtaining refund only and those where refund was sought as a consequential relief after striking down of the order of assessment etc. In these cases also the claims made for refund in the writ petitions were consequent upon declaration lf law made by this Court. Hence, the High Court committed no error in entertaining the writ petitions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 86 - S V Patil - Full Document

Suganmal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 4 November, 1964

In support of the submission that a writ petition seeking mandamus for mere refund of money was not maintainable, the decision in Suganmal v. State of M.P. was cited. In AIR para 6 of the said judgment, it is stated that 'we are of the opinion that though the High Courts have power to pass any appropriate order in the exercise of the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, such a petition solely praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State to refund the money is not ordinarily maintainable for the simple reason that a claim for such a refund can always be made in a suit against the authority which had illegally collected the money as tax'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 129 - R Dayal - Full Document
1