Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.26 seconds)Section 57 in The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
The Indian Electricity Act, 1910
Section 56 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
New Prakash Transport Co. Ltd vs New Suwarna Transport Co. Ltd on 30 September, 1956
See also the New Prakash Transport Co. Ltd. v. The New Suwarna Transport Co. Ltd., AIR 1957 SC 232. Thus where the legislature prescribes a procedure the principles of natural justice cannot be superimposed over it Proviso 3 to paragraph 1 of the 6th Schedule specifically provides for a notice to the State Government and the Board and to no other.
The Board Of Revenue, U. P. And Others vs Sardarni Vidyawati And Another on 6 February, 1962
15. Learned counsel relied on Board of Revenue, U. P. Allahabad v. Sardarni Vidyawati, AIR 1962 SC 1217.
State Of Assam & Anr vs Bharat Kala Bhandar Ltd. & Ors on 7 April, 1967
State of Assam v Bharat Kala Bhandar, AIR 1967 SC 176,6 and the Purtabpur Co. Ltd. v. Cane Commr. of Bihar, AIR 1970 S 1896 for the contention that notice to the consumer is necessary before the revision of rates. All the three cases are distinguishable. AIR 1962 SC 1217 was a case under the Stamp Act. The power of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 56(2) was considered by the Supreme Court. It was held that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority acts judicially in disposing of a reference made to him by the Collector, which involves payment of large amounts by the executant of instruments. The decision of the Board of Revenue accordingly has to be given after a hearing as the executants point of view needs to be considered by the Board. The reference is provided by Section 56 of the Stamp Act in case of a doubt by the Collector as to the Stamp Duty chargeable on an instrument. He hears the parties concerned and then makes a reference to the Board of Revenue. The reference is only a continuation of a judicial proceeding started before the Collector. The Board of Revenue has, therefore, to give a notice to the party affected. The proceeding under the Supply Act does not partake of the nature of a reference under Section 56 of the Stamp Act, AIR 1967 SC 1766 was a case under the Defence of India Rules, 1962, Rule 126-AA (1) empowered the Industrial Tribunal to decide disputes between employers and employees involving variation of contractual relations and alteration of conditions of service. This could not be done on a subjective satisfaction by the Government without consulting the employers. The Supreme Court held that it was to be done on an objective basis by calling for a data from the parties concerned and after investigating the materials furnished. The case only lays down that when an authority is acting in a quasi-judicial manner it should act objectively and not subjectively and reach a conclusion on the basis of the material furnished. The provisions of the Supply Act in the sixth Schedule themselves provide for the furnishing of data for the fixation of reasonable return. Provisos 2 and 4 of para 1 of the sixth Schedule which control excess profits and provide for a refund, enable the licensee only to earn a reasonable profit on the outlay. The procedure thus protects the interest of the consumer, the Government exer-cising a sufficient check on the licensee. The case cited above does not advance the contention raised. AIR 1970 SC 1896 was a case under the Sugar cane Control Order. In that case reservations of cane areas were altered by the Cane Commissioner and a question arose whether the parties affected were adequately heard before the passing of the impugned order. Representations in that case had already been made by the parties concerned for allocation of cane areas, the complaint was that the impugned orders had been passed without giving them a proper opportunity of putting their case. The Supreme Court held that the proceeding under Clause 6 (1) of the Sugarcane (Control) Order (1966) regarding reservation of sugarcane areas was of quasi judicial nature and while acting in a quasi-judicial manner authorities had to follow the principles of natural justice. No adverse order could accordingly be passed against a party without giving him an opportunity of effective representation. This again was
a case where representations had already been made by parties whose direct interest was involved in the reservation of cane area. An adverse order could in the circumstances not be passed without affording them an opportunity. The case is clearly distinguishable. It can lend no support to the petitioner's contention that in a matter of fixation of electricity charges under the Supply Act a consumer who has no direct interest in the matter of fixation of rates and who had made no representation in that regard should also be given an opportunity of hearing before enhancement of rates by the licensee who has a unilateral right to do so under the Supply Act.
The Amalgamated Electricity Co. Ltd vs N.S. Bhathena And Another on 30 March, 1964
12. The sixth Schedule deals elaborately with the fixation of reasonable return. Excess profit is controlled by proviso 2 to paragraph (1) and provision is made for the refund of excess profit by proviso 4. The schedule puts a ceiling on the income of the licensee. The consumer may approach the State Government or the Board for the appointment of a rat-ing committee in certain circumstances as was observed by the Supreme Court in Amalgamated Electricity Co. Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 1598 (supra).