Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.83 seconds)Section 127 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Section 126 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Section 5 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
The Indian Electricity Act, 1910
Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs M/S Shubhalaxmi Rice Mill, M.I.D.C. ... on 27 April, 2020
6. Mr. S.K. Kejriwal submits that in terms of Clause (e) of HT Category VII -
Oil and Coal of Schedule of Tariff issued by the APDCL w.e.f. 10.07.2017, if the
Recorded Demand is higher than the Contracted Demand in a month, then fixed
charge based on Contracted Demand can be levied, at three times the normal
rate, for the portion of demand exceeding the Contracted Demand. He submits
that in the present case, the Recorded Demand and the Contracted Demand is
the same which is 783 KVA. As such, the electricity consumption did not exceed
the connected load. He also submits that as there was no consumption of
electricity in excess of the sanction/connected load, there was no unauthorized
use of electricity in terms of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, as has been
held by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Engineer & Another vs.
Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, reported in (2012) 2 SCC 108.
Har Devi Asnani vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 27 September, 2011
9. Mr. S. K. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
there is no bar for this Court to decide the present case, as there is no inflexible
Rule that just because an alternative remedy is available, the same has to be
availed of. In this regard, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Smt. Har Devi Ashani vs. State of Rajasthan and
others, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 160.
Assistant Collector Of Central Excise ... vs Dunlop India Ltd. And Ors on 30 November, 1984
In paragraph-3 of the judgment in the case of Assistant Collector of
Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal vs Dunlop India LTD .,
reported in (1985) 1 SCC 260, the Supreme Court held as follows :
Varimadugu Obi Reddy vs B. Sreenivasulu on 16 November, 2022
In the case of Varimadugu Obi Reddy vs. B. Sreenivasulu ., reported
in (2023) 2 SCC 168, the Supreme Court stated that it deprecated the practice
of entertaining writ petitions by the High Courts under Article 226 of the
Constitution, without exhausting the alternative remedy available under the law,
when the circuitous route appeared to have been adopted by the petitioner to
avoid the condition of pre-deposit, contemplated under the second proviso to
Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act 2002.