NEW CENTRAL JUTE MILLS CO. LTD. versus UTTAR PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD, LUCKNOW & ORS.

NEW CENTRAL JUTE MILLS CO. LTD. versus UTTAR PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD, LUCKNOW & ORS.

The Board acted lawfully in levying and collecting surcharge for electricity supplied in excess of the authorised quota, acting under the statutory authority of s. 22-B of the Electricity Act, 1910 and s. 49(3) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. The contract's notice requirement does not apply to such supply, and the surcharge was not retrospectively imposed.

Parties
Appellant: New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd.; Respondents: Uttar Pradesh Electricity Board, Lucknow & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 November 1986
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Authority for Electricity Surcharges, Ban on Excess Electricity Consumption, Retrospective Application of Tariff, Contractual Notice Requirements
Electricity Law Administrative Law Contract Law Statutory Authority for Electricity Surcharges Ban on Excess Electricity Consumption Retrospective Application of Tariff Contractual Notice Requirements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd.

Appellant

Uttar Pradesh Electricity Board, Lucknow & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Electricity Board have legal authority to levy a surcharge for electricity drawn in excess of the permissible limit?
  2. 2 Does the agreement require one month's notice before imposing such surcharge?
  3. 3 Is the levy of surcharge retrospective and unlawful?

Ratio Decidendi

The Board acted lawfully in levying and collecting surcharge for electricity supplied in excess of the authorised quota, acting under the statutory authority of s. 22-B of the Electricity Act, 1910 and s. 49(3) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. The contract's notice requirement does not apply to such supply, and the surcharge was not retrospectively imposed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs