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

1986 Supreme(Pat) 67

BIRENDRA PRASAD SINHA
Dipte Input – Appellant
Versus
Bihar State Electricity Board – Respondent


Judgment

Birendra Prasad Sinha, J.

1. The question for consideration is whether the petitioner is liable to pay the annual minimum guarantee charges even when there is no constant supply of electrical energy by the respondent-Board in terms of the agreement and/or in case where the agreement has been broken by disconnecting the line for non-payment of unauthorised charges ?

2. The petitioner is a partnership firm registered as a Small Scale Industry and is engaged in production of steel shots which is an import substitute. The factory is situated at Mihijam in the district of Santhal parganas. It is the only factory engaged in manufacture of steel shots in the State of Bihar according to the petitioner. Steel shots are manufactured through the medium of electric are furnance which needs constant power supply and any interruption and failure in the supply of electrical energy leads to solidifying of the molten or semi-molten steel. In view of the nature of production requiring constant power supply, this type of industry has been characterised by the respondent-Board as the priority sector to be fed by electricity continuosly. It is stated that this industry cannot accept any trippin















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