U. J. PHALKE
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company – Appellant
Versus
Kanchan – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The judgment and decree dtd. 28/8/2012 passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Bhandara in Special Civil Suit No.29/2008 is under challenge in the present appeal.
2. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 / Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) have preferred the appeal. Defendant No.4 is respondent No.2 and the plaintiff is respondent No.1 in the appeal.
3. The parties are hereinafter referred as per their original nomenclatures.
4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under: The plaintiff is an Advocate practising at Bhandara and was also appointed as panel Advocate of the MSEDCL. Defendant No.4 was the Superintendent Engineer. As per contentions of the plaintiff, he had filed a Special Civil Suit for recovery of arrears of energy charges, as per instructions of the head office of defendant No.1 against defaulter namely M/s.Uniferro International Company Limited. The plaintiff was getting counsel 's fees as per scheduled rates declared by MSEDCL vide correction slip No.78 dtd. 5/7/1984 to GO2(S&S) dtd. 18/2/1965. Thus, as per contention of the plaintiff, he was entitled to get counsel 's fees according to the said circula
Bhagwandas Goverdhandas vs. Girdharilal Parshottamdas and Co. and ors
U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and ors.
Gulf Goans Hotels Company Limited and another vs. Union of India and Others
An allegation of collusion must be specifically averred with details and proved. Although it is apparent that the defendant no. 2 admitted to the claim made by the plaintiff, the evidence led by the ....
The arbitration fees can be separately fixed for claims and counter-claims as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is consistent with the statutory intent.
The Court emphasized that public authorities must honor payment obligations to legal representatives, rejecting claims of non-agreement on fees where precedent payments were made, and affirmed the ma....
The Court clarified the provisions of Section 96 of CPC and the Explanation to Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC, emphasizing the right of the respondent to file a cross-objection against any finding recorded ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.