Dismissed

M/S Mahalakshmi Spinners Ltd. v. U.H.B.V.N. and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Jul 2009RSA/1321/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed an appeal challenging an order invoking Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, wherein the lower courts held that fake CT/PT seals did not prove electricity theft but authorized Section 126 assessment.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. The memo challenged and pending civil miscellaneous applications are disposed of.

M/S Mahalakshmi Spinners Ltd. Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

RSA No.1321 of 2008 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

¶4

AT CHANDIGARH.

¶5

RSA No.1321 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.07.2009

¶6

M/s Mahalakshmi Spinners Ltd.

¶7

...Appellant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and another

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

¶12

Present : Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the appellant.

¶13

Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate for the respondents.

¶14

¶15

AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL)

¶16

This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below and it has been found as a fact by both the Courts that the CT/PT seals of the meter of the appellant were fake. However, on the basis of the earlier consumption data the Courts below held that it is not a case of electricity theft and ordered that instead of invoking Section 135 the respondents could invoke Section 126.

¶17

Learned counsel has argued that both Sections 126 and 135 would necessarily imply a guilty intention and the Courts having absolved the appellant even recourse to Section 126 is bad.

¶18

Learned counsel has proposed the following substantial questions of law:-

¶19

“Whether it is a case of assessment under section

¶20

RSA No.1321 of 2008 (O&M)

¶21

-2-

¶22

126(6) of Electricity Act, 2003?

¶23

Whether there is any evidence of unauthorized use of electricity as defined under section 126 in explanation of the Electricity Act?

¶24

Whether the memo no.2007/CA dated 24.1.2006 is liable to be set aside?

¶25

Whether it is a case of misreading in view of the statement made by DW2 and DW3 and the consumption data for the last three years before checking?”

¶26

In my opinion, these questions cannot be pressed into use by the appellant in view of the concurrent finding regarding the tampering of the CT/PT seal. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the finding regarding tampering is either based on no evidence or it is based on such misreading of evidence so as to render it perverse. Once this finding of tampering is upheld recourse to Section 126 cannot be faulted. Learned lower appellate court has considered the matter in the correct perspective after extracting the relevant provisions of the sale circular.

¶27

Consequently, this appeal is dismissed.

¶28

As the main case has been disposed of therefore all the pending civil miscellaneous applications in the case also stand disposed of.

¶29

( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE

¶30

July 08, 2009 ashish

M/S Mahalakshmi Spinners Ltd. v. U.H.B.V.N. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mahalakshmi Spinners Ltd. v. U.H.B.V.N. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaswinder Singh Vs Surjit Singh

Sukhdev Singh and Anr. Vs Bhagwan Singh

Daulat Ram and Ors. Vs Mansha and Ors.

Pyare Lal Vs Premwati and Anr.

Tirkha and Anr. Vs Girraj and Ors.

Tehal Singh Vs Firm Goyal Trading Co., Badbar