TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi High 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