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

1958 Supreme(Bom) 20

J.R.MUDHOLKAR, V.M.TARKUNDE
State and Anr – Appellant
Versus
Shantilal R. Desai – Respondent


Judgment

Tarkunde, JJ.

1. The facts of this case are not in dispute. The respondent is a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. He was authorised by his licence to supply electricity in a part of the town of Billi-mora. He had laid supply lines along various roads in the town, including the Mahatma Gandhi Road, the Station Road and the Manekbai Tata Road. It appears that towards the end of 1955 he converted his supply from D.C. to A.C. current. On account of this alteration he was required to set up a larger number of electric poles to support the aerial wires. The work of setting up additional poles was carried out by him on or about 7-12-1955. Before carrying out this work, the licensee failed to give any notice to the Billimora Municipality. The Municipality claimed that it was obligatory on the licensee under Section 13(1) of the Indian Electricity Act to give a notice of the intended works to the Municipality. For his failure to do so the respondent was prosecuted under Section 47 read with section 13 (1) of the Act. The Judicial Magistrate who heard the case acquitted the respondent of the alleged offence on the ground that the respondent, in setting up the new electr














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