At the Stage of Framing Charge, Presumption Suffices; Suicide Note and Grave Suspicion Enough: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Charge Under Section 306 IPC 173 CrPC | Framing of Charge Marks End of Investigation—Complainant Cannot Reopen Probe Merely by Citing Police Lapses: Bombay High Court Recovery Alone Cannot Prove Guilt: Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Photos, Videos Must Go: Supreme Court Binds Warring Spouses to Clean Up Social Media in Matrimonial Settlement Standard for Bail Under Section 319 CrPC Is Higher Than Framing of Charge, But Short of Conviction: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused Summoned Mid-Trial State Cannot Arbitrarily Deny Subsidies to 'New Industrial Units' by Retrospectively Applying Expansion Caps: Supreme Court Companies Act | Offence Under Section 448 Is Covered Under Section 447: Supreme Court Bars Private Complaint Without SFIO Nod “See-To-It” Obligation Is Not A Guarantee Under Indian Law: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Section 126 ICA In IBC Disputes Mere Employment of Litigant’s Relatives in Police or Court Doesn't Prove Judicial Bias: Supreme Court Sets Aside Transfer of Criminal Case Reserved Candidate Availing Relaxed Standards in Prelims Cannot Migrate to General Quota for Cadre Allocation: Supreme Court Mere Vesting Does Not Mean Possession: Supreme Court Rules ULC Proceedings Abated For Failure To Serve Mandatory Notice To Actual Occupants Contempt of Courts Act | Natural Justice in Administrative Action: Supreme Court Directs West Bengal Govt to Re-Adjudicate Teachers' Arrears Claims Live-In Relationship with Married Man Not a ‘Relationship in the Nature of Marriage’ Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay High Court Applies Supreme Court Guidelines Income Tax Act | Substitution of Shares held as Stock-in-Trade upon Amalgamation constitutes Taxable Business Income if Commercially Realisable: Supreme Court Judges Cannot Enact Their Own Protocols During Bail Hearings: Supreme Court Sets Aside Sweeping Age Determination Directions In POCSO If There Is Knowledge That Injury Is Likely To Cause Death, But No Intention Falls Under Section 304 Part II:  Supreme Court High Court Ignored POCSO’s Statutory Rigour, Committed Grave Error in Granting Bail: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Gang-Rape Accused Section 22 HSA | Co-Heirs Have Statutory Right of Pre-Emption Even in Urban Property: Punjab & Haryana High Court 138 NI Act | Issuance of Separate Cheques Gives Rise to Independent Causes of Action, Even if Drawn for Same Underlying Transaction: Supreme Court

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