Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K 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