Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |     Governor’s sanction suffers from non-application of mind: Karnataka High Court Stays Governor’s Sanction for Investigation Against CM Siddaramaiah    |    

Electricity Act - Ownership and Consumption Criteria Must be Maintained Continuously Throughout the Year: Supreme Court in a Decision on Captive Generating Plants

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India provided extensive clarity on the interpretation of the Electricity Act, 2003, particularly focusing on the definitions and regulations around Captive Generating Plants (CGPs) and their captive users. The bench comprised of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice M.M. Sundresh, and the judgment delved into the nuances of the Act and relevant rules.

The judgment stated, "The judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the relevant legal provisions and rules related to Captive Generating Plants and captive users in the context of the Electricity Act, 2003, and the Electricity Rules, 2005."

Among the key highlights, the Court clarified what constitutes a CGP as per Section 2(8) of the Act. It also delineated the conditions for captive users, stating that the "captive user should own not less than 26% of the CGP" and "should consume not less than 51% of the electricity generated by the CGP."

Justice Sanjiv Khanna was quoted saying, "Ownership and consumption criteria must be maintained continuously throughout the year." This clarification is critical for companies and cooperative societies involved in the electricity sector, as it sets a precedent for future cases involving CGPs.

The court also went into the technicalities of applying these criteria throughout a financial year, especially when there are changes in shareholding. The Court recommended using a "weighted average shareholding method" when determining proportionate electricity consumption, thus providing concrete guidelines for such scenarios.

Furthermore, the judgment also discussed the role of CGPs in the National Electricity Policy, emphasizing their role in "securing reliable and cost-effective power and creating employment opportunities." The Court highlighted the importance of interpreting the law in line with the policy's objectives.

The judgment also made distinctions from previous cases and provided specific guidelines on the interpretation of Rule 3 of the Electricity Rules, 2005, especially related to Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) and their status as "association of persons."

Legal experts believe this judgment will serve as a comprehensive guide for the regulatory framework around CGPs and will likely influence upcoming cases and policy decisions in the sector.

The appellant in the case was M/S. Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited, and the respondents were M/S. Gayatri Shakti Paper and Board Limited and Another, ETC.

 Date of Decision: 09 October  2023

 M/S. DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED VS M/S. GAYATRI SHAKTI PAPER AND  BOARD LIMITED AND ANOTHER, ETC.

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/09-Oct-2023-DAKSHIN-GUJARAT-VIJ-COMPANY-Vs-Gayatri_Shakti.pdf"]

Similar News