Motor Insurance Policy Covers Cross-Border Travel If Specifically Authorized By Valid Permit Under MVA: Supreme Court Petrol Pumps Act As 'Commission Agents' For Mahanagar Gas, Liable To Pay Service Tax Under Business Auxiliary Service: Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses To Dilute 'Bangalore Water Supply' Ratio, Affirms Worker Protection Remains The Core Of Industrial Disputes Act Order XXII Rule 9(3) CPC | Application Under Section 5 Limitation Act Must Be Filed Separately To Condonate Delay In Setting Aside Abatement: Supreme Court Principle Of Parity | Supreme Court Extends Benefit Of Fixed-Term Sentence To Co-Accused Based On Remission Period Right To Catch Fish Amounts To 'Profit à Prendre' And Is Compulsorily Registrable As A Lease Under Section 17(1)(d) Registration Act: Supreme Court Supreme Court Mandates Adoption Of Guidelines To Inculcate Sensitivity And Compassion In Judicial Processes For Sexual Offences 'Last Seen' Circumstance Is Weak Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused PSEB | Pre-Regularization Service Must Be Counted As Qualifying Service For Pensionary Benefits: Supreme Court Writ Of Quo Warranto Cannot Be Used For Redress Of Personal Grievances By Unsuccessful Candidates In Selection Process: Supreme Court 'Case Of No Investigation': Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Citing 'Shoddy' Police Work And Lack Of Forensic Evidence 'Status Quo Cannot Be Vacated Without Appropriate Security': Supreme Court Directs Additional ₹200 Crores Deposit In RAKIA-Matrix Case SARFAESI Act | 'Bank' As Assignee Can Invoke Recovery Measures Even If Debt Was Originally Created By Non-Notified Financial Institution: Supreme Court 'CBI Failed Miserably': Supreme Court Tears Into 'Fabricated' Case, Acquits Bank Manager In 35-Year-Old Corruption Trial Mere Delay In Tax Deposit Cannot Be Equated With Non-Payment: Supreme Court Quashes Penalty On Saudi Arabian Airlines Revisional Power Under Section 56 Karnataka Land Revenue Act Cannot Be Invoked Beyond Three-Year Limitation Period: Supreme Court Prosecution Can’t Use Known Locations To Create 'Discovery' Fiction: Supreme Court Rejects Site Plan As Evidence Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage And Long-Term Separation Constitute Valid Grounds For Divorce Under Section 13(1)(ib) HMA: Supreme Court 'Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Is A Guideline And Not A Fetish': Supreme Court Acquits Man In 2007 Murder Case Over Fragile Circumstantial Evidence Plea Of Juvenility Is A Jurisdictional Fact; High Court Must Recall Final Judgments Under Section 482 CrPC To Remedy Miscarriage Of Justice: Supreme Court SEBI | Professional Clearing Members Have No Statutory Obligation To Verify Credit/Debit Positions Of Individual Clients Of Trading Members: Supreme 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