Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

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