Court : Andhra Pradesh
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.Nos.29621; 31777 o19. 11-2012 Sriramagiri Spinning Mills Limited The State of Andhra Pradesh,Department of Energy,and others Counsel for petitioner : Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, Senior Counselfor Sri K.R. Prabhakar Counsel for respondent No.1 : -- Counsel for respondent No.2 : Sri O. Manohar Reddy, Standing Counsel Counsel for respondent No.3 : Sri P. Srinivasa Rao, Standing Counsel W.P.No.31777/2012: Mahadev Sitharam Cotton Mills India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh,Repby its Prl Secretary,Department of Energy, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents !Counsel for petitioners : Sri S. Niranjan Reddy ^Counsel for respondent No.1 : Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 : Sri O. Manohar Reddy,Standing Counsel Counsel for respondent No.4 : Sri P. Srinivasa Rao, Standing Counsel ?CASES REFERRED:1. AIR 195.S.C....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Commission of India CCI
In the present matter, the information was filed on 17.06.2011 under Section 19 (1) (a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by Shri Yogesh Ganeshlaji Somani (hereinafter referred to as Informant) against Zee Turner Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party No. 1) and Star Den Media Services Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party No. 2) alleging that the proposed joint venture (JV) of Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 in the sale and distribution of channels will strengthen their position by adversely affecting the competition in the relevant market. The Commission vide its order dated 27.09.2011 under section 26(1) of the Act directed the Director General (DG) to conduct an investigation into the matter and submit his investigation report. 2. The brief facts and allegations in the matter, as stated by the Informant, are as under;- 2.1 The Informant is a subscriber of satellite television channels who receives various channels from the local c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. These Writ Appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 05.12.2008 in a bunch of Writ Petitions filed by the respondents to these Writ Appeals. Writ Petition No.14350 of 2008 was treated as the leading Writ Petition by the learned Single Judge. Writ Appeal No.581 of 2009 arising out of the aforesaid Writ Petition is being treated as the leading Writ Appeal and reference of facts giving rise to W.A.No.581 of 2009 shall be sufficient for deciding all these Writ Appeals. 2. Parties shall be referred to as described in W.P(C) No.14350 of 2008. 3. Brief facts of W.P(C) No.14350 of 2008 are: First petitioner is the registered association of distributors of Liquified Petroleum Gas (for short, LPG ) duly appointed by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, a Government of India Oil Company. The second petitioner, a member of the first petitioner is one of the distributors of LPG. The Parliament enacted the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter refer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 2109-2110 of 2004 K C Ninan ... Appellant versus Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors. Respondents With Civil Appeal No 2108 of 2004 With Civil Appeal Nos 5312-5313 of 2005 With Civil Appeal No 5314 of 2005 With Civil Appeal No 6587 of 2005 With Civil Appeal No 7303 of 2005 With Civil Appeal No 6579 of 2022 With Civil Appeal Nos 6593-6594 of 2022 With 1 Civil Appeal No 3018 of 2007 With Civil Appeal No 7169 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 6591 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 6595 of 2022 With Civil Appeal Nos 6879-6881 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 6592 of 2022 With Civil Appeal Nos 7103-7104 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 6828 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 7064 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 6590 of 2022 And with Civil Appeal No 3640 of 2022 2 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI Table of Contents A. Overview 4 B. Regulatory Regime 5 C. The position in law 10 D. Issues 14 E. Submissions 15 F. Analysis 25 G....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC439IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8978/2019 M/S SUNDEW PROPERTIES LIMITED APPELLANTS VERSUS TELANGANA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & ANR. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT DIPANKAR DATTA, J.THE CHALLENGE1 This is a statutory appeal before us under section 125 of the Indian Electricity Act, 20031. It registers a challenge to the judgment and order dated 27th September, 2019 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity2 1 Electricity Act 2 APTEL Page 1 of 24 dismissing an appeal carried under section 111 of the Electricity Act by the appellant from the judgment and order dated 15th February, 2016 passed by the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission3. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order of the TSERC was upheld. BRIEF FACTS2 The basic facts giving rise to this appeal are not disputed. A brief overview of the facts and the trajectory of proceedings, relevant for a decision on the present appeal, are set out...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
1. This appeal, preferred by Reliance Energy Ltd. (REL in short), challenges order dated April 23, 2007 in case No. 2 of 2007 and tariff order dated April 24, 2007 passed in case No. 75 of 2006 by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC or the Commission in short).3. REL was required to submit its Multi Year Tariff (MYT) petition to MERC by November 30, 2006 for the FY 2007-08 as per Regulations 9 of the MERC (Terms and Conditions) Tariff Appeal No. 90 of 2007 Regulations notified by MERC under provisions of The Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act). MERC was determining tariff for the year 2007-08 which was a part of the first MYT period for FY 2007-08 to FY 2009-10.Submission of the petition was delayed by REL due to several reasons and the same was eventually submitted in January, 2007 for generation, transmission and distribution businesses for the first control period FY 2007-08 to FY 2009-10. In the meantime, by an order dated April 23, 2007, MERC ordered REL to charge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2008)LCAPTEL135
1. This appeal is preferred by the Mula Pravara Electric Cooperative Society Ltd. (MPECS in short) against the Tariff Order dated October 20, 2006 passed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC or the Commission in short), in case No. 54 of 2005, to the extent it applies to MPECS. (a) Allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned order dated October 20, 2006 passed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission in case No. 54/2005, to the extent of determination of bulk supply tariff applicable to the appellant. (b) Direct that the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission should dispose of the petition for determination of ARR and tariff filed by the appellant (being case No. 51 of 2005), which is presently pending, on the principles enumerated by this Tribunal for determination of tariff for a licensee operating in the rural area, on cooperative principles in line with National Policy for Rural Electrification and Bulk Power Purchase and Management...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
1. This judgment will dispose of four appeals mentioned on the title of this judgment. The appeals No. 188/05, 179/05 and 27/06 are directed against the order of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Regulatory Commission, Raipur (Commission for short) dated 29.09.05. The appeals No. 16/06 is directed against the order dated 29.11.05. The appeals were disposed of earlier by this Tribunal vide a judgment dated 11th May, 2006. That judgment was challenged in three appeals, being No.4268, 3996 and 4529/06 which were disposed of by the Supreme Court vide a judgment dated 11.05.06 setting aside the judgment of this Tribunal and remanding the matter for a fresh judgment. The Supreme Court, in particular, wanted this Tribunal to decide the issue of application of Section 10(2) of Electricity Act 2003 to the facts of this case. We have heard the parties on all the issues involved.2. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. (JSPL for short) established a sponge iron / steel plant at Raigarh, Chhattisgarh in the yea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2008)110ITD247(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the revenue on 20-1-2004 against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-III, Mumbai dated 4-11 -2003 in the case of the assessee in relation to block assessment order under Section 158BC for the block period 1-4-1989 to 8-12-1999.2. In this appeal, the revenue has taken as many as 15 grounds of appeal that are as follows: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred holding that the shares of M/s. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. and M/s. Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. held by the assessee were not t; in the nature of stock-in-trade and that the shares were held as 'investments' for the purpose of acquiring controlling stake. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in placing undue reliance on the return of income filed by the assessee before the search action under Section 132 for the assessment year 1998-99 wherein the conversion of sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1931Bom210
Patkar, J. 1. In this case the respondents, the firm of Messrs. Chunilal Fatechand, were the creditors of the insolvent and had notified and also proved their claim before the dividend was declared by the receiver, whereas the appellants, Vrijlal Mansukhram and others, who were the creditors of the insolvent, proved them only after the declaration of the dividend.2. The learned Subordinate Judge held that as it was the only dividend and probably the final dividend, the appellants were entitled to individual notices Under Section 64, Provl. Insol. Act 5 of 1920, and therefore, as they did not receive the notices they were entitled to reopen the distribution of the dividend already declared and distributed. The view of the learned Subordinate Judge was confirmed by the District Judge in appeal. On second appeal, Madgavkar, J., came to the contrary conclusion, and held that the mare fact that the first dividend proved to be the final dividend did not entitle the negligent creditors to com...
Tag this Judgment!