KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA
LOHIA MANDILIA – Appellant
Versus
C. E. S. C. LTD. – Respondent
( 1 ) BY this single judgment the aforesaid two matters can be disposed of, as the facts and law involved therein are identically same. Shorn of details of the fact made out in both the writ petitions it would be suffice to narrate the short fact. In both the cases the petitioners, are consumers of M/s. CESC Ltd. , being the respondent No. 1. On 4/09/2000 one of the three phases of electric connection of the premises of the petitioners was gutted in fire, as a result whereof, the same was destroyed. On information the CESC officials came to restore the supply line after removing defect occurred due to fire. However, the line was not restored, despite repeated request and representations. On the contrary CESC authorities took a false plea of pilferage of electric energy, by means of tampering of seals of the meters. So, CESC sent a bill of huge amount for payment as condition precedent for restoration of supply line. The petitioners approached concerned Redressal Forum, under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 without any favourable result, ultimately these writ petitions were filed and pursuant to the interim order the line has been restored. In both the writ p
Hyderabad Vanaspati Ltd. v. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board
State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell and Company
State of Karnataka v. Shree Rameshwara Rice Mills
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel
Krishna Bus Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana
Tata Cellular v. Union of India
M.P.Electricity Board, Jabalpur v. Harsh Wood Products
LIC of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre
State of Tamil Nadu v. Ananthi Ammal
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.