138 NI Act | Admission Of Signatures On Cheque Triggers Statutory Presumption Of Debt: Punjab & Haryana HC Magistrate Cannot Straightaway Issue NBW For Non-Appearance If Accused Is Already On Bail; Bail Valid Until Cancelled: Orissa High Court Bank Cannot Dishonour Cheques Merely Because Account Title Changed From Partnership To Proprietorship: Madhya Pradesh High Court Environmental Clearance Is Site-Specific; Violations At Different Site By Related Entity Not Ground To Deny New EC: Kerala High Court Advocate’s Failure To Formally Prove Fee Bill Not Fatal To Claim If Oral Evidence Establishes Non-Payment Of Agreed Professional Fees: Delhi High Court Police Officers Cannot Fight Over Specific Postings; Disciplined Force Must Prioritize Public Interest Over Location: Karnataka High Court RERA Section 18 Interest For Delayed Possession Is An Unqualified Absolute Right; Notice Under Section 55 Contract Act Not Required: Bombay High Court State Cannot Hand Over Additional Charge Of Sensitive Posts To Tainted Officers Facing Disciplinary Action: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Essential If Accused Resides Outside Jurisdiction; Commercial Breach Not Criminal Offence: Calcutta High Court Disciplinary Enquiry Cannot Be Quashed Merely For Delay In Conclusion; 6-Month Timeline Under G.O.Ms.No.679 Is Directory: Andhra Pradesh High Court Exoneration In Adjudication Proceedings No Bar To Criminal Prosecution If CBI Collects Independent Evidence Of Forgery & Conspiracy: Bombay High Court Public Prosecutor Not A 'Post Office' Of Investigating Agency; Independent Application Of Mind Mandatory For Extending Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Complainant Cannot Use Section 311 CrPC To Reopen Pre-Charge Stage After Explicit Waiver & Framing Of Charges: Allahabad High Court Bomb Blast In Train Is An 'Accident' Under Railways Act, Union Of India Liable To Pay Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Hearing Can Proceed In Informant's Absence If Notice Was Served Despite Section 483(2) BNSS Mandate: Allahabad High Court

Legal Profession Not Commercial Activity - Lawyers' Chambers to be Charged Under Domestic Rates of Electricity: Allahabad HC

04 September 2024 10:54 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, Allahabad High Court has upheld the distinct character of the legal profession and ruled that it does not fall under the purview of commercial activities. The judgment clarifies the charging of electricity consumption for lawyers' chambers located within court premises and sets a precedent for uniformity in rate application.

In the judgment, the Court categorically stated, "The legal profession in catena of cases has been held to be non-commercial activity and it is not a trade or business." It emphasized that lawyers' offices and chambers are primarily engaged in a profession that involves personal skill, intelligence, and individual characteristics, which are inherently different from commercial activities.

The Court thoroughly examined various provisions, including Section 3(1) and Section 86 of the Electricity Act, 2003, along with the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005. It noted that the State Commission has the authority to determine electricity tariffs, guided by the National Electricity Policy, National Electricity Plan, and Tariff Policy.

The contentious issue revolved around the applicability of rate schedule LMV-2, which is designated for non-domestic purposes such as shops, hotels, and commercial establishments. The legal profession, being non-commercial in nature, was found to be ineligible for classification under this rate schedule.

Quoting several landmark cases, including Dr. D.M Surti Vs. State of Gujarat and V. Sasidharan v. M/s Peter and Karunakar, the Court firmly established that advocates' activities are not of a commercial character, but rather a solemn and serious occupation that requires specialized knowledge and skill.

The judgment addressed the issue of discriminatory charging of electricity rates for similar premises within the same state, stating that different power corporations cannot treat consumers differently. It directed the respondents to charge lawyers' chambers under rate schedule LMV-1, applicable to domestic users, ensuring uniformity and fairness in electricity billing.

Date of Decision: 03-08-2023

Tehsil Bar Association , Sadar Tehsil Parisar , Gandhi Nagar, Ghaziabad  vs U.P. Power Corporation Limited And 3 Others

Latest Legal News