Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 8 November, 2012
(b) The Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgment in Ayaaubkhan
Nookhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC
465, at para 10 and 17:
Shanti Kumar R. Canji vs The Home Insurance Co. Of New York on 24 July, 1974
"10. A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of
legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or
a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law.
The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a
person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary
injury; a person aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily
be one whose right or interest has been adversely
affected or jeopardised. (Vide Shanti Kumar R.
Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York [(1974) 2
SCC 387 : AIR 1974 SC 1719] and State of
Rajasthan v. Union of India [(1977) 3 SCC 592 : AIR
1977 SC 1361] .)
..........
The Electricity Act, 2003
Gridco Ltd vs Jindal Stainless Limited & Others on 17 April, 2009
In the case of GRIDCO Vs. Jindal Stainless
Ltd., Judgment dated 17.04.2009 inAppeal No. 40 of 2009, this
Hon'ble Tribunal held that "a person aggrieved" must be a
person who has suffered a legal grievance by a decision of the
Appropriate Commission. The relevant extract is as follows:
Pushpendra Surana vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 10 March, 2014
(a) This Tribunal's Judgment in Pushpendra Surana vs.
Central Electricity Regulatory & Ors., 2014 SCC Online
APTEL 48, at para 16 and 18:
Sh. Bharat Jhunjhunwala vs Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory ... on 12 February, 2014
18. At this juncture, it shall be stated that the very same
question had been raised in another matter before this
Tribunal in IA No. 392 batch of 2012 with similar facts in
which, order has been passed by this Tribunal on
Page 17 of 21
IA NOS. 477 & 1247 OF 2019 IN APPEAL NO. 223 OF 2015 & Batch
20.12.2012 in the case of Bharat Jhunjhunwala v. Uttar
Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission wherein we
have decided that the party who is a mere member of the
public cannot file an Appeal by seeking leave to file an
Appeal claiming that the party has got the public interest
in the absence of the ingredients to satisfy the definition
of the term "consumer"."
1