Rigours of UAPA Melt Before Article 21: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail After Six Years of Incarceration Accused Cannot Challenge in Arguments What He Never Challenged in Cross-Examination: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Counterblast Plea, Civil Dispute Defence No Shield When Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-Driver Accused Of Outraging Modesty Lawyers Who Burned a Colleague's Furniture for Defending Toll Workers Have Tainted a Noble Profession: Supreme Court A Suspicious Dying Declaration Cannot Hang a Man: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction IQ of 65, Memory Loss, Frontal Lobe Damage: Supreme Court Holds Brain-Injured Manager Suffered 100% Functional Disability, Enhances Compensation to ₹97.73 Lakh Cannot Be Forced to Pay Gratuity to Retired Employees Who Refuse to Vacate Company Quarters: Supreme Court Victim Who Incited Riot Inside Court Cannot Blame Accused for Trial Delay: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Section 307 Case You Cannot Sell What You Don’t Own: ‘Vendor’s Half Share Means Buyer Gets Only Half’ : Andhra Pradesh High Court Nagaland's Oil Laws Face Constitutional Challenge: Gauhati High Court Sends Union-State Dispute to Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 3 CPC | Will's Validity Cannot Be Decided in Substitution Proceedings: Himachal Pradesh High Court 6-Year-Old Loses Arm To Live 11kV Wire Passing 'Almost Touching' Her Balcony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards Rs. 99.93 Lakh To Child Despite Nigam Blaming Father For 'Extending Balcony' Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Quash Rape & POCSO Conviction After Marriage Between Accused And Victim NGT Cannot Order Demolition of Temple On Ground of Encroachment of Park: Supreme Court Quashes Removal Order For Want of Jurisdiction Hostile Witnesses & Doubtful Recovery Can Collapse Prosecution: J&K High Court Sets High Threshold for Criminal Proof Compassion Cannot Override the Clock: Karnataka HC Denies Job to Guardian Aunt Despite 2021 Rule Change” Second Marriage During Pendency of Divorce Appeal Is Void: Kerala High Court Appearing in Exam Does Not Cure Attendance Deficiency: MP High Court Upholds 'Year Down' Against BBA Student With Sub-30% Attendance Patna High Court Directs Bihar To Submit Detailed Rehabilitation Plan For Recovered Mental Health Patients, Expand Half-Way Homes Across State Rajasthan High Court Upholds Refusal to Drop Bharat Band Stone-Pelting Case

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