Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited – Appellant
Versus
Ultra Tech Cement Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited feels aggrieved against the order dated 14.11.2018 passed by the Consumers Grievances Redressal Forum, HPSEBL, allowing the complaint preferred by the respondent. The Forum held the petitioners debarred from claiming the amount in question from the respondent. The demand notice issued by the petitioners- HPSEBL on 09.02.2018 claiming an alleged outstanding liability of Rs.2,18,400/- for the period 25.10.2010 to 25.11.2010 on account of less charging, was quashed and set-aside.
2. The case:-
2(i). A cement plant was being run by M/s Jai Prakash Associates Limited at Village Baga, P.O. Kandhar, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. with split unit for grinding of clinker in the name of M/s Japee Himachal Cement Grinding & Blending Plant at Village Pandyana Tikkri, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan. Under a scheme of merger in terms of Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act Jai Prakash Associates Limited & J.P. Cement Corporation Limited, both Public Limited Companies merged into Ultra Tech Cement Limited-respondent. The scheme of merger provided for transfer and vesting of business of Jai Prakash Associates L
The limitation period for recovering electricity dues under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is two years; claims beyond this period cannot be enforced.
The right to recover electricity dues through civil suits is not barred by the two-year limitation for disconnection proceedings under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act.
The court established that while disconnection for non-payment is limited to two years, the right to recover amounts through civil proceedings remains intact.
(1) Duty to supply electricity under Section 43 of 2003 Act is not absolute and is subject to such charges and compliances stipulated by Electric Utilities as part of application for supply of electr....
The court established that an electricity company can issue revised bills for bona fide mistakes in billing, reinforcing the consumer's obligation to pay based on accurate meter readings.
Supplementary bills can be raised for mistakes, but disconnection for non-payment after two years is prohibited under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
(1) What is extinguished by law of limitation, is remedy through a Court of law and not a remedy available, if any, de hors through a Court of law.(2) Raising of an additional demand in form of “shor....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Electricity Act imposes a statutory duty on the respondents to provide electricity connection to the petitioner within a specified period,....
The court affirmed that continuous showing of arrears in monthly bills permits recovery beyond the two-year limitation under Section 56 of the Electricity Act.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
