Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

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