Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

High Court Dismisses Appeal in Electricity Meter Tampering Case: Insufficient Evidence to Prove Allegations:  Gujarat High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Gujarat High Court has dismissed an appeal by the Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited against Girnar Cement Pvt Ltd, concerning allegations of electricity meter tampering and power theft. The Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, emphasizing the lack of substantial evidence to substantiate the claims of the electricity company.

The appellant, Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited, had filed an appeal challenging the Trial Court’s verdict that dismissed their suit for the recovery of Rs. 24,09,963.55, claimed as electricity consumption charges from the respondent, Girnar Cement Pvt Ltd. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant engaged in power theft by tampering with the electricity meter.

However, the High Court, presided over by Honourable Mr. Justice Biren Vaishnav and Honourable Ms. Justice Nisha M. Thakore, scrutinized the evidence presented and found it lacking in proving the allegations. “The evidence on record by the company suggested that there was no laboratory examination done of the meter, that in fact, it was a case where theft could not be proved and the bill was raised on the basis of presumption,” the Court observed.

The Court’s critical analysis highlighted inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s claims and the insufficiency of the evidence to prove meter tampering or justify the recovery amount. “All these, therefore, would suggest that there was no evidence on record for the plaintiff to come to a conclusion that it was entitled to a decree of recovery of Rs.24 lakhs and odd when based on its own evidence it had failed to prove its case,” the judgment read.

The defendant’s counsel, Mr. Ashish M Dagli, successfully defended the allegations, pointing out the absence of concrete evidence for meter tampering and highlighting past cases where similar claims by the plaintiff were dismissed.

This judgment is a reminder of the stringent standards of evidence required in allegations of utility fraud and the importance of concrete proof in such cases. It sets a precedent for future disputes in the power sector, emphasizing the necessity for thorough investigation and substantiation of claims before seeking legal recourse.

Date of Decision: 18 December 2023

PASHCHIM GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD VS GIRNAR CEMENT PVT LTD

 

Latest Legal News