SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 107

G.T.NANAVATI, K.RAMASWAMY
Swastic Industries – Appellant
Versus
Maharashtra State Electricity Board – Respondent


ORDER

The petitioner is canvassing the correctness of the decision of the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, made on August 30, 1996 in Appeal No. 520/95.

2. The admitted position is that the respondent-Electricity Board had issued a supplementary till to the petitioner on February 5, 1993 demanding payment of Rs. 3,17,659/-. The petitioner objected to the bill by his letter dated February 16, 1993. However, when letter was issued for payment of the said amount, the petitioner paid it under protest and filed the complaint before the State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission. The Commission by order dated May 24, 1995 allowed the complaint and held that the claim was barred by limitation of 3 years. Feeling aggrieved, the Electricity Board filed an appeal. The National Commission relying upon the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in M/s. Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Anr.1 has held that there is no limitation for making the demand by way of supplementary bill. Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 gives power to the Board to issue such demand and to discontin











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top