Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

Punjab and Haryana High Court Limits Recovery of Electricity Dues Beyond Statutory Limitation Period

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently delivered a judgment restricting the recovery of electricity dues beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed under the Electricity Act, 2003. The bench comprising of Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan emphasized the importance of adhering to the limitation period while dealing with electricity billing disputes.

The court stated, “The limitation period of two years under Section 56(2) restricts the right of the licensee company to disconnect electricity supply due to non-payment of dues after the period of limitation has expired.” It further clarified that while the licensee company can raise a supplementary demand after the limitation period, it cannot resort to coercive measures such as disconnection of electricity supply.

The case in question, LPA No. 2304 of 2017 (O&M), involved a dispute between Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) and Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. The appellant, BSNL, argued that the demand for payment made by the Corporation went beyond the prescribed limitation period, and thus, was not permissible.

The court highlighted that the demand could only be raised from the date when the checking was done, which in this case was 17th June 2005. Therefore, the Corporation was not entitled to claim payment for the period preceding 7th November 2003, as prescribed under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Justice Sandhawalia observed, “The issue being legal and having been settled by the Apex Court, we are of the considered opinion that it merits consideration to the limited extent that the new Act had come into force on 10.06.2003 and there is a limitation prescribed under the said Act, up to 2 years of the same when the first demand became due.”

The judgment cited a previous decision by the Supreme Court in Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited v. Rahamatullah Khan @ Rahamjulla, which emphasized the restriction on disconnection of electricity supply after the expiry of the limitation period. It also referred to the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s ruling in M/s Gwalior Distilleries Ltd., Rairu v. M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Ltd., which held that the liability could not be enforced beyond the statutory two-year period.

With this ruling, the High Court has underscored the significance of adhering to the limitation period for the recovery of electricity dues. The judgment ensures that consumers are protected from arbitrary disconnection and provides them with legal remedies for the resolution of billing disputes.

Date of Decision: 22nd February 2023

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and ors.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/BSNL-VS-PSPCL-02-FEB-23-PH-HC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News