Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Anil Kumar Choudhary
Dayal Steels Limited – Appellant
Versus
Damodar Valley Corporation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claims related to electricity billing. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments on maintainability of writ petitions. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. maintainability of writ petitions discussed. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. consumer rights regarding electricity billing. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. respondent's defenses against the petitioner's claims. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. final legal reasoning regarding agreements. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. court's decision to dismiss the petitions. (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
Heard the parties.
2. Both these Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India between the same parties in respect of the same subject matter but W.P.(C) No.3205 of 2002 has been filed with a slightly different prayer which was required after partial compliance of the prayer made in W.P.(C) No.1727 of 2002 by the respondents of the said writ petition, hence, both these Writ Petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is a medium scale industry and it had set up its plant at village Chaha in the district of Hazaribagh for manufacturing of steel ingots/ billets as well as Ferro Alloys. In July,
The court upheld that a voluntarily entered agreement for billing practices, despite subsequent legislative changes, remains binding on the parties involved unless proven otherwise.
The High Court cannot adjudicate on writ petitions involving disputed questions of fact, especially when jurisdiction is conferred on Special Courts under the Electricity Act, 2003.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural safeguards in billing disputes, affirming that natural justice principles apply even in electronic billing contexts.
Section 135 of 2003 Act deals with an offence of theft of electricity and penalty that can be imposed for such theft. This squarely falls within dimensions of criminal jurisprudence and mens rea is o....
The obligation to pay electricity charges arises upon issuance of a bill, which constitutes the first due, and the limitation period under Section 56(2) does not prevent supplementary demands.
The obligation to pay electricity charges arises upon issuance of the bill, which constitutes the first due amount, regardless of prior consumption, as per Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2013.
The obligation to pay electricity charges arises upon the issuance of a bill, as clarified under Section 56 of the Electricity Act, allowing supplementary demands beyond the usual limitation period w....
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
