Detailed Description Of Concealment Not Mandatory Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Bombay High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Child Is Not A Pawn To Prove Mother's Adultery: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Husband's DNA Test Petition In Desertion Divorce Case Shareholder Ratification Cannot Cure Fraud Under SEBI's PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Restores Rs. 70 Lakh Penalty on Company When High Court Judges Themselves Disagree on the Answer, Can a Law Graduate Be Penalised for Getting It Wrong? Supreme Court Says No Superficial Burns Don't Mean Silence: Supreme Court Explains Why 80-90% Burn Victim Could Still Make a Valid Dying Declaration Daughter's Eyewitness Account, Dying Declaration Seal Husband's Fate: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Wife-Burning Murder Supreme Court Rejects Rs. 106 Crore Compensation Claim; Directs SECL to Supply Coal to Prakash Industries at 2014 or 2019 Prices for Wrongfully Suspended Period Section 319 CrPC | Trial Court Cannot Conduct Mini Trial While Deciding Application to Summon Additional Accused: Supreme Court Accused Can't Be Left Without Documents To Defend: Calcutta High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To First Decide Whether Complete 'Relied Upon Documents' Were Served In PMLA Proceedings Husband Who Took Voluntary Retirement at 47 Cannot Escape Maintenance Duty: Delhi High Court Upholds ₹10,000/Month to Wife and Daughter Cannot Claim Monopoly Over a Deity's Name: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Trademark Injunction Against 'Kshetrapal Construction' Eviction Appeal Cannot Require Actual Surrender Of Possession, Symbolic Possession Sufficient: J&K High Court Amendment Introducing Time-Barred Relief And Changing Nature Of Suit Cannot Be Allowed: Karnataka High Court Counter Claim Is An Independent Suit: MP High Court Rules Properties Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Dragged Into Counter Claim Co-Sharer Cannot Be Bound By Passage Carved Out Without His Consent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies Concurrent Decrees ‘Prima Facie True’ Is Enough to Deny Liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail in Babbar Khalsa Terror Conspiracy Case High Court Cannot Quash FIR for Forgery When Handwriting Expert's Report Is Still Awaited: Supreme Court Supreme Court Calls for Paternity Leave Law, Says Father's Absence in Child's Early Years Leaves a "Quiet Cost" That Lasts a Lifetime Three-Month Age Cap for Adoptive Mothers' Maternity Benefit Struck Down: Supreme Court Reads Down Section 60(4) of Social Security Code Bank Cannot Rely on Charter Party Agreement to Justify Remittance Contrary to Customer's Instructions: Supreme Court 19 Candidates Linked to Accused, Papers of Five Subjects Leaked: Allahabad High Court Upholds Cancellation of UP Assistant Professor Exam Result

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