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

2001 Supreme(All) 393

G.P.MATHUR, BHAGWAN DIN
L. M. L. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Ashok Mehta, Ranjit Saxena, Somesh Khare, SUDHIR AGRAWAL

G. P. MATHUR, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing of the 15 per cent surcharge levied on the energy charge in the electricity bill of the petitioner for August, 2000.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act and is engaged in manufacturing two wheelers (scooters and motor cycles ). The petitioner entered into an agreement with U. P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as UPSEB) on 31-10-1996 for supply of electrical energy in the form of a three phase alternative current at declared pressure of 132 KV and a power not exceeding 800 KV to its factory at A-1, Panki Industrial Area, Site III, Kanpur. The petitioner claims that it is running a non-continuous process industry and has to observe peak hour restirction and, consequently, it does not consume power from 6. 00 p. m. to 11-00 pm. A new tariff was enforced with effect from 9-8-2000 and in the bill dated 5-9-2000 a surcharge of Rs. 6,33,898. 45 was levied on total energy charge of Rs. 42,25,989. 68. The petitioner contends that as it is observing peak hour restriction and is not consuming power during the restricted hours



























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