Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

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"]

Latest Legal News