Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.48 seconds)Chairman Grid Corporation Of Orissa ... vs Smt. Sukamani Das And Anr. Etc on 15 September, 1999
In the present case, the appellants had
disputed the negligence attributed to it and no
finding has been recorded by the High Court that the
GRIDCO was in any way negligent in the performance
of its duty. The present case is squarely covered
by the decision of this Court in Chairman, Grid
Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) and others
(supra). The High Court has also erred in awarding
compensation in Civil Appeal No............. of 2005
[@ SLP(C) No.9788 of 1998]. The subsequent suit or
writ petition would not be maintainable in view of
the dismissal of the suit. The writ petition was
filed after a lapse of 10 years. No reasons have
been given for such an inordinate delay. The High
Court erred in entertaining the writ petition after
a lapse of 10 years. In such a case, awarding of
compensation in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Article 226 cannot be justified.
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board vs Shail Kumari And Ors. on 11 January, 2002
As against this counsel for the respondent
cited a later judgment of this Court in M.P.
Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari & Ors., 2002 (2)
SCC 162, wherein this Court has taken the view that
the Electricity Board could be fastened with the
liability in a case in which the live wire got
snapped and fell on the public road which was
partially inundated with rainwater. The observation
made by this Court in the aforesaid case would not
applicable to the facts of the present case as in
the said case a suit had been filed in which a
finding of negligence was recorded by the trial
Court against the Board. The trial Court after
coming to the conclusion that the respondents were
entitled to a compensation of Rs.4.34 lacs non-
suited the respondents solely on the premise that
the claimants had failed to prove their liability
for such compensation. The High Court in the said
case had recorded a finding, "therefore, the
defences put up by MPEB are absolutely without any
basis and do not reflect the real position at the
spot, rather attempt has been made to conceal the
real position in order to avoid responsibility and
liability for payment of compensation." On these
facts, this Court came to the conclusion that the
claimants were entitled to the compensation.
The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948
1