Lack Of Title Documents In Lal Dora Land Does Not Relieve Plaintiff From Proving Continuous Possession To Claim Ownership: Delhi High Court Unauthorized Video Recording Of Court Proceedings Without Prior Permission Amounts To Contempt Of Court: Bombay High Court Finality Of Litigation | State Cannot Re-Litigate Settled Decrees By Alleging Collusion After Affirmation Up To Supreme Court: Allahabad High Court SC/ST Act | Court Cannot Determine Conversion Status To Quash FIR Before Completion Of Investigation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Absence Of Manufacturing Activity And Dilapidated Condition Of Premises Constitute Valid Grounds For Closure: Bombay High Court Non-Disclosure Of Existing Insurance Policies In Proposal Form Entitles Insurer To Repudiate Claim: Calcutta High Court Will Interpretation | Bequest Of "Above Said Property" Includes Entire Estate, Not Just Descriptive Portions Mentioned Therein: Delhi High Court Limitation Act | Court Can Balance Equities By Denying Interest For Delay Period In Land Acquisition Appeals: Gujarat High Court Article 21 Constitution Of India | Personal Liberty Of Detenue Cannot Be Curtailed Without Authority Of Law Post-Acquittal: Jharkhand High Court Order 8 Rule 1A CPC | Trial Court Should Not Reject Documents Merely For Delay If Foundation Is Laid In Pleadings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order XXII CPC Applies To SCC Suits; Rule 25 Of U.P. Urban Buildings Rules Does Not Govern Substitution Where Act Is Inapplicable: Allahabad High Court Recruitment Authorities Cannot Insist On Impossible Experience Criteria: Karnataka High Court Rules Against Rejection Of Motor Vehicle Inspector Candidates Order 38 Rule 8 CPC | Claim Petition Cannot Be Allowed Ex-Parte Without Adjudication On Merits: Kerala High Court Succession Certificate Under Section 372 Indian Succession Act Cannot Be Granted When Title Is Subject To Intricate Questions Of Fact And Law: Madras High Court SARFAESI Act | District Magistrate Cannot Adjudicate Disputes Between Borrower And Secured Creditor While Assisting Possession: Madhya Pradesh High Court Termination Based On Caste Status Without Cancellation Of Original Certificate Is Legally Unsustainable: Orissa High Court Section 13 Punjab Village Common Lands Act | Civil Court Jurisdiction Not Ousted In Private Injunction Suits Where Title Against Panchayat Is Not Sought: High Court Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act  | Equal Opportunity Policy Of Employer Is Mandatory; Routine Transfer Policy Must Yield To Special Provisions For Caregivers: Rajasthan High Court Compensation Must Be Just, Not A Pittance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Award In Motor Accident Claim Registration Act | Sub-Registrar Has No Power To Adjudicate Title Or Refuse Registration Based On Unauthorized Layouts: Telangana High Court Section 50 NDPS Act | Failure To Individually Communicate Right To Be Searched Before Gazetted Officer Or Magistrate Vitiates Conviction: Telangana 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