Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S PREMIER ISPAT LIMITED versus DAKSHINANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Premier Ispat Limited v. Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited And Others - WRIT - C No. 73942 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 7163 (8 December 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Civil Misc. W.P. No.  73942 of 2005

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.

Sri W.H. Khan wants to file a counter affidavit, which he may do within three weeks. Rejoinder may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List the petition immediately after five weeks.

The meter at the factory of the petitioner was found not to show any consumption during the certain period. Therefore, initially, the petitioner was billed on the average of previous three months billing cycle. The petitioner paid the amount.

Thereafter, the second demand has been raised on the averment that the meter installed at the feeder showed export of energy to a certain extent and for that entire exported energy, the petitioner has been billed. According to the averments in the writ petition, which are not denied by Sri W.H. Khan, although instructions have been obtained by him, the energy exported from the feeder is supplied to two consumers namely, the petitioner and the M/s. Mawana Steels Private Limited (in short Mawana). Prima facie, part of the exported energy must have been consumed by Mawana also. If during the period when the petitioner's meter was not showing any consumption, the meter of the other consumer namely, Mawana was not defective and not tampered, the power shown to be consumed by that meter of Mawana must be deducted from the total exported energy and the petitioner could have been billed only for the said balance energy at best.

No such thing appears to have been done, therefore, pending filing of the counter affidavit, we stay the demand made by the bill dated 21.6.2005 (Annexure-10 to this writ petition), in asmuchas, the earlier bill raised according to the previous three months billing cycle has been deposited by the petitioner.

Dated : December 8, 2005

AM/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.