Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  


This Page To:

M/S. JAGANNATH STEEL PVT. LTD. V/S U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. & ANOTHER, decided on Thursday, November 2, 2017.
[ In the Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal Nos. 7105-7106 of 2012. ] 02/11/2017
Advocate(s) : Arvind Kumar Shukla, Alok Shukla, Amit Shukla, Sweta Rani, Nihal Ahmad. Pradeep Misra, Indu Misra, Suraj Singh.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-

  NCC Limited Versus Sembcorp Gayatri Power Limited & Another,   24/10/2017.  

  Sameer S. Desai Versus Jeevan Narayan Naik & Another,   14/09/2017.  

  Sikaria Divinity Private Limited Versus State of West Bengal,   18/08/2017.  

  Zuari Maroc Phosphate Ltd Versus Union of India,   21/04/2017.  

  Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Versus GTL Infrastructure Ltd. & Others,   16/12/2016.  

  The Head Master, Vivek Vardhini Madhyamik Vidyalaya & Another Versus Alka Namdeo Khalekar & Others,   29/08/2016.  

  Kolkata Glass & Ceramics Private Limited Versus Union of India & Another,   25/07/2016.  

  Rane Engineering Valves Ltd, Rep by its Vice President Ranga Reddy District Versus State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary & Others,   19/05/2016.  

  Magasvargiya Shikshan Sanstha & Another Versus Bhausaheb Sonaji Kakade & Others,   06/05/2016.  

  In the Matter of: Jagannath Mane Versus Union of India through Secretary & Others,   29/01/2016.  

  Rio Energy Private Limited Versus State of Karnataka & Others,   14/01/2016.  

  CTR Manufacturing Industries Limited Versus SERGI Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Others,   23/10/2015.  

  A.P. Power Coordination Committee & Others Versus M/s. Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd. & Others,   16/10/2015.  

  Lalit Kumar Bagla & Others Versus Rajiv Kumar Poddar & Others,   23/09/2015.  

  New Delhi Municipal Council Versus Prominent Hotels Limited,   11/09/2015.  

  Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. Versus M/s Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd. & Another ,   05/08/2015.  

  M/s Link Utsav Auto System Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of MP,   26/06/2015.  

  Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. Versus Gail India Ltd. ,   24/06/2015.  

  Gaurishankar Neeklanth Kalyani & Others Versus Mrs. Sulochana Neeklanth Kalyani & Others,   18/05/2015.  

  Niranjan Mekap & Others Versus State of Orissa & Others,   30/03/2015.  

  S. Lakshmi Versus M/s Reliance Builders, Hyderabad & Others,   31/12/2014.  

  The State of Maharashtra & Others Versus Yuvraj & Others ,   17/12/2014.  

  Danish Infratech Private Limited Versus Delhi Cantonment Board,   19/11/2014.  

  Planters Forum, A Private Trust represented by its Secretary & Another Versus State of Kerala, represented by The Chief Secretary To Government & Another,   17/11/2014.  

  V. Srihari Raju Versus The Municipal Corporation & Others,   27/10/2014.  

  Interbulk Trading SA Versus Adam & Coal Resources Pvt. Ltd.,   30/06/2014.  

  K. Ayyamuthu & Others Versus The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary to Government & Others,   17/06/2014.  

  M/s. International Nut Alliance LLC Versus M/s. Beena Cashew Company & Others,   20/02/2014.  

  M/s. Windsor Infrastructure Lt. Vs. M/s. HSB Agro Indusries Pvt. Ltd.,   30/01/2014.  

  Management of Chevalier T. Thomas Educational Trust, Chennai Versus The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu & Others,   29/11/2013.  

  Mrs C. Sita Prasad & Another Versus M/s. Lodha Healthy Construction & Developers Pvt Ltd.,   25/11/2013.  

  MRF Mazdoor Sangh Versus The Commissioner of Labour & Others,   03/10/2013.  

  Gaurishankar Neeklanth Kalyani & Others Versus Sulochana Neeklanth Kalyani & Others,   04/09/2013.  

  Tata Steel Limited & Others Versus The State of West Bengal & Others,   24/06/2013.  

  Yakub Abdul Razak Memon Versus The State of Maharashtra, through CBI , Bombay,   21/03/2013.  

  Jagannath s/o Anna Khakare & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Energy Department & Others,   08/02/2013.  

  Tata Steel Ltd. & Others Versus State of Odisha & Others,   09/10/2012.  

  M/S. Kirat Chand Jain Family Trust Versus State Bank Of India,   05/10/2012.  

  Enercon (India) Ltd. & Others Versus Enercon GmbH & Another,   05/10/2012.  

  Mahesh Rajak Versus State of M.P. & Others,   04/05/2012.  

  Institute Of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences Versus Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & Others,   05/03/2012.  

  M/S Pradeep Oil Corporation Versus Union Of India,   30/01/2012.  

  Kundanmal abriwala Versus Haryana Financial Corporation & Another,   20/12/2011.  

  State of Orissa & Others Versus M/s. Jagannath Choudhury Special Class Contractor,   18/11/2011.  

  Progressive Construction Ltd. Versus Louis Berger Gropup Inc. & Others,   11/11/2011.  

  Avtar Singh & Others Versus State of Punjab & Others,   11/11/2011.  

  Gyan Dev Sadh & Others Versus Parmeshwar Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Others,   05/10/2011.  

  Rajendra Prasad Rungta & Another Versus Rmc Med Ltd. & Others,   26/08/2011.  

  lcl jewellery ltd Versus Debts Recovery Tribunal,   02/08/2011.  

  M. Doddaiah & Others Versus The State Of Karnataka By Its Principal Secretary To Revenue Department, Bangalore & Others,   14/07/2011.  

#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

    The present dispute concerns itself as to whether the appellant who is a HV-2 consumer of electricity has to pay electricity tariff based on the urban rate of tariff or the rural rate of tariff.2. On 13.11.2002 the Executive Engineer in an Office Memorandum held that the appellant would have to pay electricity on the rural schedule rate which Office Memorandum was quashed by an order dated 22.10.2003 stating that the appellant would have to be charged on the basis of the urban schedule rate.3. Since the difference between the two rates at that point of time came to an amount of Rs. 18 21 576/- this was demanded by a letter dated 03.11.2003 issued by the Deputy General Manager.4. The appellant went before the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission and by a judgment dated 03.09.2004 it was held that the billing will have to be done on the rural basis. However it was also further held that the licensee will also levy penalty on account of peak hour/restricted hours as per tariff schedule.5. In a review petition before the Regulatory Commission the penalty of Rs. 2.42 Crores that was demanded pursuant to the order dated 03.09.2004 was set aside. In a challenge to this order before the Appellate Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 19.07.2012 the Appellate Tribunal held that the State Commission would have no jurisdiction to enter into individual disputes relating to individual billing of electricity. Having so held it however went on to opine on merits that the appellant will have to pay in accordance with urban and not rural rates.6. Mr. Arvind Kumar Shukla learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued before us that having found that the State Commission has no jurisdiction to proceed further in the matter the Appellate Tribunal could not have gone on to decide the case on merits.7. Mr. Pradeep Misra learned counsel for the respondent points out that this may be correct but that this would also include the penalty order that was set aside in review so that the penalty would resuscitate as a result of the Appellate Tribunal's findings.8. Having heard the learned counsel on behalf of both the parties we are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal could not have gone on to decide the matter on merits and further hold that the appellant is liable to pay at urban rates. Consequently this part of the Appellate Tribunal judgment is set aside.9. It goes without saying that since the first part of the judgment on maintainability is upheld by us the penalty order pursuant to the order dated 03.09.2004 must also go. With these observations the appeals are disposed of.10. By our interim order dated 16.09.2013 we had referred to an amount being deposited by the appellant with the Registry of this Court which shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent-Corporation on condition that in the event of the appellant succeeding in the matter the amount shall be returned to the appellant with 12 per cent interest thereon within such time as may be prescribed by the Court. This amount will now consequent upon our order be allowed to be withdrawn by the appellant with accrued interest.