Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.29 seconds)The Electricity Act, 2003
Section 31 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors vs Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr on 19 August, 2011
5. Recently in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar
(2011) 9 SCC 541, again the question was whether the District Forums and
the State Commissions under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have the
power to set aside their own ex parte orders or the power to recall or review
their own orders. The Apex Court again held that the said fora being creature
of the statute derive their powers from the express provisions of the statute
and the powers which have not been expressly given by the statute cannot be
exercised. Finding that no such power had been vested in the District
Forums or the State Commission, it was held that no such power could be
exercised by them.
Competition Commission Of India vs Steel Authority Of India & Anr on 9 September, 2010
7. Similarly, recently in Competition Commission of India vs. Steel
Authority of India Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 744, it was held that the power under
Section 33 of the Competition Act, 2002, to pass temporary restraint order
can only be exercised when the conditions laid down for exercise of the said
power were met and not otherwise.
State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs Vinesh Kumar Bhasin on 22 January, 2010
So also in State Bank of Patiala vs.
Vinesh Kumar Bhasin (2010) 4 SCC 368, it has been held that the Persons
with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995 did not empower the Commissioner under the said
Act to issue any interim order directing a person with disability to be
continued in service beyond the age of retirement; it was held that an
authority functioning under the Disabilities Act has no power or jurisdiction
to issue a direction and the fact that the Act clothed the Commissioner with
certain powers of Civil Court for discharge of its functions did not enable
the Commissioner to assume other powers of a Civil Court which are not
W.P.(C) Nos. 13647 to 13650 & 13390 all of 2009 Page 5 of 19
vested in him by the provisions of the Act and the powers of a Civil Court
for granting injunctions − temporary or permanent, do not inhere in the
Commission nor such a power can be inferred or derived.
Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory ... vs Reliance Energy Ltd. & Ors on 14 August, 2007
8. The Supreme Court in Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory
Commission v. Reliance Energy Ltd. (2007) 8 SCC 381 also held that the
State Electricity Regulatory Commission constituted under the Electricity
Act, 2003 had no power to issue a direction for refund though was
empowered to issue a general direction to the licencees to abide by the
conditions of the licence and charge only as per the tariff fixed under the
Act.
M.Z. Khan vs Securities & Exchange Board Of India & ... on 10 December, 1998
10. This Court in M.Z. Khan vs. Securities and Exchange Board of
India 77 (1999) DLT 706, though held SEBI to be having a power to pass
interim orders, traced the source thereof to Sections 11 and 11B of the SEBI
Act, 1992 and did not hold such a power to be an inherent power.
Music Broadcast Pvt Ltd vs Super Cassette Industries Ltd on 1 September, 2011
13. However, a Division Bench of this Court in judgement dated 1st
September, 2011 in RFA No. 250/2011 titled Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. v.
Super Cassette Industries Ltd. held the Copyright Board constituted under
the Copyright Act, 1957 to be possessing power to pass interim orders in
proceedings under Section 31 of the Act. Such a power was not traced to any
provision of the Act or the Rules but held to be ancillary or incidental and
necessary to enable the Board to discharge its functions effectively for doing
justice between the parties. A catena of judgments laying down the said
principle were noticed by the Division Bench.
Viswasrao Chudaman Patil vs Lok Ayukta, State Of Maharashtra And ... on 29 September, 1984
14. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court also in Viswasrao
Chudaman Patil v. Lokayukta, State of Maharashtra AIR 1985 Bombay
136 justified, a reading of a power in the Lokayukta constituted under the
Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Act, 1971 to make interim
recommendation in tune with the power to make a final recommendation
under Section 12 of that Act, to effectual performance of the work for which
the Office of the Lokayukta had been created and so that the order or
decision of the Lokayukta is not a barren success. I may however add that
the power was also traced to Rule 35 of the Rules under the Act.