MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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