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

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