Orissa Court May 1976 Judgments
Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Orissa State Elec ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-12-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ori31; 42(1976)CLT870
Mohanti, J.1. The principal question for consideration in this writ application is whether the State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') set up under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has power to unilaterally enhance the energy rate for supply of electricity in derogation of contractual stipulations as to rates in the binding agreements between the Board and the petitioners when it finds that the contractual rates are not sufficient to meet the cost of generation, distribution and supply of electricity and thereby causing it operational loss.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts are these: Petitioner No. 1 is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1 of 1956 with the objects, inter alia, of manufacturing ferro alloys and is at present engaged in the manufacture of ferro silicon and silicon metals by modern and sophisticated processes. Electricity is one of the main raw materials for suc...
Tag this Judgment!Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. State of Ori ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: May-11-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Ori194; [1976]384STC189(Orissa)
B.K. Ray, J.1. The State of Orissa and the assessee applied to the Sales Tax Tribunal under Section 24 (1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to state cases and refer certains questions for opinion of the Court. After hearing both sides the Tribunal has stated these cases and referred the following questions for opinion of the Court:--'(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that there has been no contravention of the declaration given under Rules 27 (2) of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules thus attracting the Proviso to Section 5 (2) (A) (a) (ii) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act?(2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal having held that there was no contravention of Section 5 (2) (A) (a) (ii) of the Act acted within its jurisdiction in remanding the appeal ?(3) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sale by the pettioner-Company to the Japanese Buye...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›