Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.40 seconds)
M/S.Pm Swimming Centre vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike on 10 November, 2021 cites

State Of Punjab & Ors vs Bhatinda District Coop. Milk P. Union ... on 11 October, 2007

22. Even as to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that there was no limitation prescribed for making a demand of arrear charges, the Division Bench relying on the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk Producers Union Ltd. [(2007) 11 SCC 363] , observed that even where no period of limitation is indicated, the statutory authority is required to act within a reasonable time. In our view, what would construe a reasonable time, depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, but it would not be fair to the respondent if such demand is allowed to be raised after 25 years, on account of the inaction of the petitioner."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 254 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Municipal Corpn.Of Greater Mumbai vs Harish Lamba Of Bombay, Indian ... on 22 October, 2019

Insofar as the judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the Board is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI V. HARISH LAMBA OF BOMBAY, INDIAN INHABITANT AND OTHERS reported in (2020)15 SCC 171 held that the 24 water tax or water benefit tax can be recovered or has to be paid even after the water connection stands disconnected. That was a case where the Apex Court was considering the challenge on the ground of limitation and the initiation for recovery of such amount was made within 3 years as the arrears in the case before the Apex Court was determined on 31.03.1994 and the Apex Court observes that the 3 years limitation period would have expired on 30.03.1997 and the impugned demand notices had been issued on 10.01.1997. Therefore, it was within the period of limitation. The interest component on the arrears was also observed by the Apex Court. Therefore, the said judgment is distinguishable on the facts of the case at hand without much ado.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 3 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna ... vs Green Rubber Industries And Ors on 24 November, 1989

In the case of BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA AND OTHERS V. M/S GREEN RUBBER INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS reported in (1990) 1 SCC 25 731, the Apex Court was considering the action of disconnection of supply on 28.09.1981 for a demand notice that was received by the consumer on October, 1981. The charges payable were between June 1981 to August 1981 amounting to Rs.22,951.50. Therefore, the case also was where the Apex Court considered a demand made within reasonable time and the contention therein was that the firm was not liable to pay any amount. Therefore, the said judgment also does not support the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Board.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 84 - K N Singh - Full Document

Ferro Alloys Corpn. Ltd. And Ors. Etc. ... vs A.P. State Electricity Board And Ors ... on 15 April, 1993

21. The Apex Court in the case of FERRO ALLOYS CORPORATION LTD., V. A.P.STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANOTHER reported in 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 136 has held that providing for interest on the charges was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. paragraph 143 on which the learned counsel seeks to place reliance upon, is, in my considered view, 26 misplaced and is not applicable to the facts of the case at hand. Therefore, none of the judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the Board would lend any support to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel.
Supreme Court of India Cites 61 - Cited by 82 - S Mohan - Full Document
1