Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.36 seconds)Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) ... vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc on 6 December, 1984
It is on this basis that the learned counsel is also seeking to distinguish the judgment of the Supreme Court in I.E. Newspapers (Bombay) P. Ltd. v. Union of India . Even applying the above Rule, I am unable to see how at the time of Notification No. 133/85 there was any intention to exclude captive power projects. The court can take judicial notice of the fact that power generation was below the requirements in many States. Therefore, when Power Project is established, be it, for captive consumption or for distribution to others, the respective State Electricity Boards are saved to that exent because that much of the power is not drawn from the State Electricity Boards. Therefore, in my opinion, on the date of the Notification 133/85, the intention was to exempt all power generation plants. It is only later on, in the year 1986 when the impugned Notification 306/86 was introduced on 1-5-1986 that the respondents have introduced this invidious discrimination excluding captive power plants. The same judgment is used by the respondents for the proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not forbid reasonable classification of persons, objects and transactions for the purpose of attaining specific ends.
Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 28 April, 1993
Since the power position in the State of Orissa was very poor, the petitioner set up a captive power plant for generation of power. The very same Notification 133/85 was sought to be availed of for the import of machineries for the captive power plant. The amendment dated 1-5-1986 was challenged as a discriminatory and ultra vires the Constitution of India. There is reference to the industrial policy resolution of the year 1956 and the listing of 'generation and distribution of electricity' in the first category of industries in Schedule A of the policy. The argument is that the Orissa High Court having referred to the above aspect of the distribution did not keep in mind that aspect of the case while giving its conclusions. Secondly, it is pointed out that the industry in that case was 100 per cent Export-oriented one. The Orissa High Court has concluded as follows :-
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Customs Tariff Act, 1975
Section 159 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
The Customs Act, 1962
S. Sundaram Pillai, Etc vs V.R. Pattabiraman Etc on 24 January, 1985
"52. Thus, from a conspectus of the authorities referred to above, it is manifest that the object of an explanation of a statutory provision is -
R.K. Garg Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 20 October, 1981
10. Reliance is placed on R. K. Garg v. Union of India (AIR 1981 S.C. 2138), for the proposition that the presumption of the validity of the legislation is very strong and the Court may take into consideration matters of common knowledge, the matters of common report, the history of times and every other state of affairs which existed at the time of legislation. It is also pointed out that laws relating to economic activities should be viewed with greater latitude than laws touching civil rights, such as freedom of speech, religion etc.
Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 1990
To me, it appears that the distinction sought to be made between an exclusive Power Project and a Captive Power Project is artificial and arbitrary. The reason is, both produce electricity and both help the State Electricity Boards to the extent of their power production. The only distinction between the two is that the captive power plant is selfish in supplying power to itself whereas an exclusive Power Project supplied power to others. The main criterion is the production of the power and to that extent helping the State power Boards. The distribution of the power to itself or to others does not have any relation to the purpose of exemption. M/s. Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India is relied upon to suggest that court should not substitute its own judgment for that of the legislature or its agents as to matters within the province of either. It was held in that case that Courts should not supplant the 'feel of the expert' by its own views. There can be no quarrel about this proposition because if Notification 133/85 had itself spelt out the purpose of the notification, as an exemption in respect of power plants who not only generated power but distributed the same exclusively to others. That is not the case with the present notification. Even then it might have been open to challenge on the ground of discrimination.
1