Void Marriage Cannot Confer Legal Status: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Injunction Against Woman Claiming Wife’s Status in Bigamy Dispute Mere Presence or Relationship Is Not Enough—Prosecution Must Prove Participation and Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Allahabad High Court Evidence of Injured Eye-Witnesses Must Be of Sterling Quality — Not of a Doubtful and Tainted Nature: Bombay High Court Acquits Five Life Convicts in Murder Case Refund of Provisional Pilferage Amount Is Lawful If Theft Not Proved: Calcutta High Court Upholds Acquittal in Electricity Theft Case Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Cannot Be Rejected by Conducting Mini-Trial on Disputed Facts: Delhi High Court Section 17 PWDV Act | Senior Citizen’s Peace Trumps Daughter-in-Law’s Residence Right Where Alternative Accommodation Provided: Delhi High Court Access Must Meet Agricultural Necessities, Not Mere Pedestrian Use: Karnataka High Court Modifies Easement Width from 3 to 6 Feet Section 302 IPC | Suspicion Cannot Substitute Proof: Kerala High Court Acquits Man in Septic Tank Murder Case Domestic Violence Allegations Can’t Always Be Painted as Attempt to Murder: Meghalaya High Court Invokes Section 482 CrPC to Quash Matrimonial Assault Case Post-Settlement Landlord Is Best Judge Of His Need; Son’s Residence In Delhi No Ground To Deny Eviction For Hotel Project: Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Eviction Tribunal Has Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Grant-In-Aid Related Disputes: Orissa High Court Rejects Writ Appeal in Lecturer Promotion Case Educational Institutions Have No Lien Over Students' Future: Rajasthan High Court Slams Withholding of Certificates for Fee Recovery Mere Allegation of Forged Revenue Entries Not Enough to Disturb Settled Possession: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Plea for Injunction Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court

Continuous Process Industries Allowed to Use 50% of Sanctioned Load During Peak Hours; Permissions Not Revoked: P&H High Court Revoked Penalty

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a notable judgment delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Alka Sarin of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, an appeal filed by Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) against M/s Rasan Detergents was dismissed, with the court affirming that the respondent did not violate the imposed peak load hours restrictions. The appellants contended that the respondent exceeded permissible power usage during restricted hours, thus warranting a hefty penalty.

The central legal question revolved around whether the respondent, a detergent manufacturer, exceeded permissible power usage during peak hours, and whether permissions granted earlier allowing increased usage during these hours were still valid.

M/s Rasan Detergents was previously allowed to use up to 50% of their sanctioned load during peak hours as per PSEB’s instructions, due to their status as a continuous process industry. This permission was challenged by PSEB after an alleged violation where the respondent was reportedly using 35.294 KW during peak hours, a figure within the previously sanctioned limits.

Continuous Process Industry Status: The court noted that evidence, including a letter from PSEB dated 5th July 1983, acknowledged the respondent as a continuous process industry, which was crucial for determining the permissible power usage during peak hours.

Validity of Permissions: The court emphasized that there was no evidence presented that the aforementioned permissions allowing greater power usage during peak hours were officially revoked. This was central to dismissing the appellants' claim.

Assessment of Power Usage: It was undisputed that during the time of the alleged violation, the respondent was utilizing 35.294 KW, well within the 50% limit of the sanctioned load for continuous process industries during peak hours. This factual finding was critical in both the trial and appellate courts' decisions, and the High Court saw no reason to diverge from this determination.

Decision of the Judgment: Justice Alka Sarin concluded that the respondent had not exceeded the permissible power usage limits during peak hours and that all permissions pertinent to their operation status as a continuous process industry remained valid. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the decisions of the lower courts.

Date of Decision: 26th April 2024

Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors.M/s Rasan Detergents

Latest Legal News