Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana 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