The second appeal regarding eligibility for reduced electricity tariff for an industrial unit is dismissed. The court held the appellant failed to comply with relevant conditions and the government is not a party to grant subsidy.
Second appeal dismissed; option to approach Government for subsidy left open.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2012/13TH CHAITHRA 1934
RSA.No. 214 of 2012 ()
AS.58/2007 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT (SPL. COURT), KOTTAYAM OS.400/2004 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,KOTTAYAM
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
GEETHA RAJU, AGED 52 YEARS W/O.V.S.RAJU, VAZHAPPALLIL HOUSE PANACHIKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DIST
BY ADV. SRI. JACOB ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
BY ADV. SRI.PULIKOOL ABOOBACKER, SC, KSEB FOR R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-04-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
R.S.A.No.214 of 2012
Dated this 02nd day of April, 2012
JUDGMENT
Appellant/plaintiff, unsuccessful in the courts below in getting a settlement of account and other reliefs pleaded, has come up with this second appeal .
.1.49 per unit. Some of the industrial units filed O.P.No.9346 of 1998 seeking exemption from payment of enhanced electricity charges for a period of 5 years. The original petition was disposed of as per judgment dated 13.11.1998. Appellant claims to have paid .1,00,000/- towards enhanced tariffs and claims eligibility for reduction of tariff. Hence the suit.R.S.A.No.214 of 2012
-: 2 :-
No.5641. Respondents are not aware of the transfer of unit by T.K.Kurian in favour of appellant. The concession made available as per G.O(MS).No.30/97/PD dated 25.08.1997 was withdrawn as per order dated 10.03.1998. Respondents also contended that as per B.O.Nos.303, 306 and 734 of 1997 the tariff was raised to `.1.49 per unit from 04.01.1998 onwards.
R.S.A.No.214 of 2012
-: 3 :-
industrial units in O.P.No.9346 of 1998. The said findings are made on the evidence on record and involves no substantial question of law.
This second appeal is dismissed with the observation made above.
(THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)
Sbna/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a purchaser of an industrial unit entitled to claim subsidy or exemption by standing in shoes of previous operator.
Whether findings regarding eligibility for tariff reduction involved substantial question of law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Asst. Engineer Vs. EntheenkuttyRelied on¶31
Asst.Engineer Vs. Entheenkutty (1982 KLT 851)
Geetha Raju
Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board
Assistant Executive Engineer
Assistant Engineer
Thomas P. Joseph
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court