Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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