Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.35 seconds)Section 56 in The Indian Electricity Act, 1910 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Indian Electricity Act, 1910 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Indian Electricity Act, 1910
Section 24 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs Ashalata S. Guram on 25 September, 1986
The effect of a non obstante clause was explained by this
Court in Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram.3 It was
held that : –
“69. A clause beginning with the expression
‘notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in some
particular provision in the Act or in some particular Act or in
any law for the time being in force, or in any contract’ is more
often than not appended to a section in the beginning with a
view to give the enacting part of the section in case of conflict
an overriding effect over the provision of the Act or the
contract mentioned in the non-obstante clause. It is equivalent
to saying that in spite of the provision of the Act or any other
Act mentioned in the non-obstante clause or any contract or
document mentioned the enactment following it will have its
full operation or that the provisions embraced in the non-
obstante clause would not be an impediment for an operation
of the enactment.”
(emphasis supplied)
http://www.judis.nic.in
7/16
W.P.No.9170 of 2020
and WMP.No.11185 & 11186 of 2020
6.6. The liability to pay arises on the consumption of electricity. The
obligation to pay would arise when the bill is issued by the licensee
company, quantifying the charges to be paid.
The Electricity Act, 2003
M/S. Swastic Industries vs Maharashtra State Electricity Board on 24 January, 1997
The Standing Committee further opined that a restriction has
been added for recovery of arrears pertaining to the period
prior to two years from consumers, unless the arrears have
been continuously shown in the bills. Justifying the addition of
this restriction, the Ministry of Power submitted that : “It has
been considered necessary to provide for such a restriction to
protect the consumers from arbitrary billings.”
7.2 In Swastic Industries v. Maharashtra State Electricity
Board,4 this Court while interpreting Section 24 of the Indian
Electricity Act, 1910 held that : –
“5. It would, thus, be clear that the right to recover the
charges is one part of it and right to discontinue supply of
electrical energy to the consumer who neglects to pay
charges is another part of it.”
(emphasis supplied)
7.3 Sub-section (1) of Section 56 confers a statutory right to
the licensee company to disconnect the supply of electricity, if the
consumer neglects to pay the electricity dues.
Mahabir Kishore & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 July, 1989
In Mahabir Kishore and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh,5
this Court held that :–
“Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963,
provides that in the case of a suit for relief on the ground of
mistake, the period of limitation does not begin to run until the
plaintiff had discovered the mistake or could with reasonable
diligence, have discovered it. In a case where payment has been
made under a mistake of law as contrasted with a mistake of
fact, generally the mistake become known to the party only when
a court makes a declaration as to the invalidity of the law.
Though a party could, with reasonable diligence, discover a
mistake of fact even before a court makes a pronouncement, it is
seldom that a person can, even with reasonable diligence,
discover a mistake of law before a judgment adjudging the
validity of the law.”
(emphasis supplied)
In the present case, the period of limitation would commence
from the date of discovery of the mistake i.e. 18.03.2014. The licensee
company may take recourse to any remedy available in law for recovery
of the additional demand, but is barred from taking recourse to
disconnection of supply of electricity under sub-section (2) of Section 56
of the Act.
1