Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.25 seconds)The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948
Section 59 in The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
The Electricity Act, 2003
Section 26 in The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
M/S Hyderabad Vanaspathi Limited vs Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board ... on 1 April, 1998
The Court referred to various decisions of the Supreme Court in Bisra Lime Stone Company Limited v. Orissa State Electricity Board,, Jagadamba Paper Industries (P) Ltd. v. Haryana State Electricity Board, , Rohtas Industries v. Bihar State Electricity Board, , Kerala State Electricty Board v. S.N.Govinda Prabhu (supra), Dr. Smt Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Malta Vidyalaya, Seethapur, , Hyderabad Engineering Works Ltd v. A.P. State Electricity Board, , Bihar State Electricity Board v. M/s. Green Rubber Industries, , Sri Seetharam Sugar Company Ltd v. Union of India, , Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. A.P. State Electricity Board, , Bihar State Electricity Board v. Usha Martin Industries, , and Hyderabad Vanaspati Ltd. v. A.P.State Electricity Board (supra).
Ferro Alloys Corpn. Ltd. And Ors. Etc. ... vs A.P. State Electricity Board And Ors ... on 15 April, 1993
In the decision marked as Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. v. A.P. State Electricity Board (supra), the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of this Court in Southern Steel Ltd, v. A.P. State Electricity Board (supra). The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the deposit to be made by the consumer is not a mere deposit of money as in commercial transaction and that the object of security deposit is to ensure proper payment of bills. The Court ruled that the condition requiring payment of consumption deposit and additional deposit is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. It is not ultra vires the powers of the Board under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act. In Paragraph 121 of the judgment (AIR) the Court enumerated certain factors having regard to which it was held that the condition is not unreasonable or unconscionable. The same reads as under:
Section 67 in The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Andhra Pradesh State Electricity ... on 2 May, 1991
The said principle was reiterated in Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (supra) wherein it was held that even where the Board generate surplus such profit is made not merely for the sake of profit but for the purpose of better discharge of the obligation of the Board and when the Board acted as such, it cannot be said that the Public Enterprise had acted beyond its authority. Though the aforesaid judgments rendered by the Supreme Court while examining the tariff revision made by the Electricity Board but the principle underlying therein will equally apply to the facts of the present case. Thus, in my considered view the Board is entitled to collect from the consumers the pro rata capital cost incurred or proposed to be incurred for expanding its facilities from the prospective or existing consumers seeking loads and the same can neither be deemed as irrational nor arbitrary and it is neither conjiscatory nor penal. But on the other hand, it is an obligation cast on the consumers to contribute to the Board to enable it to discharge its statutory obligations with which it is charged. Thus viewed from this perspective the charges demanded by the respondent-Board under B.P. Ms. No. 1160, dated 3.11.1989, though styled as service line charges is nothing but collection of pro rata capital cost on the basis of demand requisitioned, which the Board is lawfully entitled to collect from its consumers in exercise of its power by framing terms and conditions of supply under Section 49 of the Act.
Southern Steel Ltd. Hyderabad vs The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity ... on 28 April, 1989
In Orissa State Electricity Board v. M/s. IPI Steel Limited (supra) the Supreme Court considered the validity of proviso to Condition No. 46 of conditions of supply prescribed by Orissa Board. Under said proviso though a consumer is not liable to pay minimum charges during the period of discontinuance/reduced supply, such consumer was made liable to pay the actual quantity of demand and/or energy supplied to consumer in lieu of contracted demand. The Supreme Court validated the provision. It was observed: