Case No. 135 of Shri Vijay L. Sonavane, Member Smt. Chandra Iyengar, Member. (1) M/s B.S.Channabasappa & Sons...Petitioner 1

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Case No. 135 of Shri Vijay L. Sonavane, Member Smt. Chandra Iyengar, Member. (1) M/s B.S.Channabasappa & Sons...Petitioner 1"

Transcription

1 Before the MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION World Trade Centre, Centre No1, 13th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Tel No /65/69 Fax Website: wwwmercindiaorgin/wwwmercgovin Case No 135 of 2013 In the matter of Petition filed by M/s BSChannabasappa & Sons and M/s Shridevi trading company for seeking relief for not providing permission by MSEDCL for availing Open Access in favour of M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd Shri Vijay L Sonavane, Member Smt Chandra Iyengar, Member In the Matter of : (1) M/s BSChannabasappa & Sons Petitioner 1 (2) M/s Shridevi Trading Company Petitioner 2 V/s (1) SE (TRC), MSEDCL Respondent 1 (2) M/s Inorbit Malls(I) Pvt Ltd Respondent 2 Representative/Advocate for the Petitioner (s) Advocate Representative/Advocate for the Respondent (s) : Shri SCKarandikar, : Shri Varun Pathak, Advocate ORDER Date: 16 January, 2014 M/s BSChannabasappa & Sons and M/s Shridevi trading Company (herein after referred as Petitioners) filed a Petition on an affidavit on 30 August, 2013, for seeking relief for not providing permission by MSEDCL for availing Open Access in favour of M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd, under subsection (47) of Section 2 read with subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Regulations made there under MERC _Order - Case No 135 of 2013 Page 1 of 13

2 2 The prayers of the Petitioners are as follows: (i) The respondent be directed to grant Open Access permission to M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd from to (ii) All other just and equitable reliefs be granted to the Petitioner for the effective adjudication of this case 3 The facts of the petition submitted by Petitioners have been summarized below: a Petitioners are a Partnership firm duly registered under the Partnership Act, has set up a Wind-Mill (125 MW each) at Sadawaghpur, Tal- Patan, Dist-Satara b M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd is company where electricity is being consumed at plot No39/1 Sector 30 A, Vashi, Navi Mumbai c MSEDCL has granted Open Access permission to M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd for the period of to to avail power from Petitioner No1 & 2 vide letter dated 5 September 2012 and 29 August 2012 respectively d M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd again applied for Open Access permission on 30 January 2013 well in advance to expiry of earlier permission MSEDCL, vide dated 03 August 2013 has informed that Open Access permission cannot be granted e Petitioner has submitted that reasons given by the respondent for refusal of the permission were unjust and devoid of legal merits Petitioners have further submitted that they have generated around 3797 Lakhs units and injected the same in the distribution network of MSEDCL 4 The Commission, vide notice dated 23 October, 2013, scheduled a hearing in the matter on 8 November 2013 During the hearing, Shri SC Karandikar appeared on behalf of Petitioners and Shri Varun Pathak, Advocate appeared on behalf of Respondent In the said hearing, the Commission directed MSEDCL to submit its response to the Open Access application of the Petitioners with copy to office of the Commission and further directed to submit its additional say on Affidavit to the Petition within 7 days The commission also directed to Petitioners to submit rejoinder, if any, within a week s time after receipt of reply from MSEDCL 5 Pursuant to the directions given by the Commission, MSEDCL filed additional submission on 14 November, 2013, the details of which are summarized as below: a Present petition has been filed by the generating companies, whereas Open Access application was filed by the consumer, therefore rejection of Open Access application by answering Respondent has to be understood in the context of ultimate consumer and not the generator who is wind energy generator b The Hon ble Appellate Tribunal in its Judgment dated 3 October, 2012 in Appeal No193 of 2011, DLF Utilities Ltd versus HERC & others has held that MERC _Order - Case No 135 of 2013 Page 2 of 13

3 supply in the building by generating company to the tenants of the building amounts to sub-distribution and such is contrary to the provisions of Electricity Act 2003 c MSEDCL had erroneously allowed Open Access to the M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd that there cannot be equality in illegality However, an illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated merely because it was being done in the past d MSEDCL has submitted that whatever units that have been pumped by the petitioners are accounted for and they shall get returns on the same in accordance with the law of land e MSEDCL has submitted that the total contract demand of connections /consumer of M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd of total load requirement of all its occupants is 4920 KVA which represents group contract demand f MSEDCL further submitted that M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd seeks to further sub distribution of power availed from the Petitioners, the same cannot be considered own use as defined under the Act or MERC (Distribution Open Access) Regulations, In compliance to the directions given by the Commission, Petitioner No1 submitted rejoinder to the MSEDCL submission on 6 December, 2013, the details of which are summarized as below:- a MSEDCL has wrongly relied on the judgment of Appellate Tribunal The rationale laid down in the said judgment is not applicable to present case b MSEDCL is in reluctant to give various single phases/three phase LT connections in one building for the operational difficulties and is persuading the consumers to opt for single HT connection However the submissions on behalf of MSEDCL in this case are contrary to its conduct c MSEDCL has conveniently kept mum about delay in refusing the permission However due to inordinate delay of MSEDCL the petitioner has lost his opportunity to find another open Access consumer 7 The Commission, vide notice dated 3 December, 2013, scheduled further hearing in the matter on 11 December 2013 During the hearing, Shri SC Karandikar appeared on behalf Petitioners and Ms Deepa Chavan, Advocate appeared on behalf of Respondent In the said hearing, Commission directed Petitioners and Respondents to file their submissions within 10 days 8 In Compliance to the direction given by Commission vide daily Order dated 11 December, 2013, MSEDCL has submitted their submission on 26 December 2013, the details of which are summarized as below: MERC _Order - Case No 135 of 2013 Page 3 of 13

4 a MSEDCL does not have any issues with petitioners availing supply to other consumers, but not to the consumers of single point supply such as mall/complexes b First time, the Commission directed that HT industrial and commercial category consumers undertaking sub distribution to mixed load would have to either operate through a franchisee route or take individual connection in ARR and tariff for licensee for FY and vide Order dated 3 October 2006 in case No 25 of 2005 and case No53 of 2005 (REL) c The Commission again vide its Order dated 24 May 2010, in case No62 of 2009 (MSEDCL) reiterated its stand taken in respect of single point supply d The Commission passed the Order in case No75 of 2007 directing all the distribution licensees to implement either of the options of the franchisee or individual connection module for industrial and commercial category consumers who undertake sub distribution to mixed load, within one year e Two appeals were filed before the Hon ble ATE challenging the Commission s Order in Case No 75 of 2007 Hon ble ATE in the Judgment stated that single point supply in the context in which parties have understood the matter should be done away with for all time to come by making proper arrangements in the alternative suggested in the Commission s Order The Commission was further directed to enforce the said Order within the period of six months from the date of Hon ble ATE Judgment f The Maratha Chamber of Commerce challenged the Hon ble APTEL judgement dated 11 July, 2011 in Hon ble Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No8415 of 2010 wherein NO STAY on said order dated 11 July, 2011 of APTEL in Appeal No155 and 156 of 2010 was given g MSEDCL had erroneously allowed the Open Access for availing supply through Petitioners h Section 12 of Electricity Act,2003 only allows authorised persons to transmit,supply and distribute electricity and section 14 provides that no to transmit,supply and distribute electricity the Commission grants license i Open Access Application of Petitioners only has been rejected by the MSEDCL for further supplying to malls/complexes and as such the Petitioners were always free to supply to any other consumer through Open Access Commission s Analysis and Ruling:- 9 Having heard the Petitioners and Respondent and after considering all the documents available on the record, the Commission observes that:- MERC _Order - Case No 135 of 2013 Page 4 of 13

5 i Petitioners are wind generators with their wind generation facility located at Satara Petitioners have entered into power sale agreement with M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd for supplying wind power to common area of Inorbit Mall MSEDCL is a respondent No 2 in the matter M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd is a consumer of MSEDCL and respondent No1 in the matter ii iii iv MSEDCL had granted Open Access permission to M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd for the period of 1 April, 2012 to 31 March, 2013 As M/s Inorbit Mall was desirous to continue with the facility, it again applied for open Access to MSEDCL well in advance prior to expiry of the earlier permission Vide E- mail dated 3 August, 2013 and letter dated 6 September, 2013, MSEDCL informed the Petitioner that the application for grant of open Access cannot be processed for third party sell to commercial complexes / malls The permission for open Access has been denied by MSEDCL stating the reason that in case of commercial complexes / malls, single point HT supply is availed and it is extended to other entities in same premise Section 12 of the Electricity Act 2003 does not allow such extension of supply to other entities MSEDCL has submitted that it had erroneously allowed open Access to the M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd MSEDCL has contended that the total contract demand of all occupants of M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd is 4920 KVA which represents group contract demand MSEDCL further mentioned that as per Regulation 3 of MERC (Distribution Open Access) Regulations, 2005, individual legal entities of M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd, ie its tenants or occupants do not meet the eligible criteria for Open Access v MSEDCL further submitted that M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd seeks further sub distribution of power availed from the petitioners, the same cannot be considered as own use as defined under the Act or MERC (Distribution Open Access ) Regulations, The Commission notes that the issue that is to be dealt with in this Petition is regarding the supply by distribution licensee on a single point connection to commercial premises such as multiplexes, malls etc Key issues to be addressed here are about the permission of Open Access by the Distribution Licensees to consumer for all its other occupants in such premises and further sub-distribution within commercial premises by the consumers receiving supply on single point connection 11 The Commission in its Order dated 24 May, 2010 in Case No 62 of 2009 has addressed the issue of supply on single point connections The Commission has directed that the dispensation to become a Franchisee of the Distribution Licensee in the State will be available to commercial complexes, Multiplexes and malls The Commission has provided certain guiding principles for Distribution Franchisee model MERC _Order - Case No 135 of 2013 Page 5 of 13

6 to be adopted for single point connections The relevant Paras of the Order dated 24 May, 2010 are reproduced below: 7 i) As regards MSEDCL's prayer for approval of the MoU route for appointment of Distribution Franchisee, the Commission holds that it is for the Distribution Licensee to adopt any method for selecting the Distribution Franchisee on such terms and conditions as it deems fit, and the Commission has no jurisdiction to approve either the process or the Party selected by the Distribution Licensee However, as expressed by the stakeholders, the Commission is of the view that ideally, the Distribution Franchisee should be selected and appointed through a competitive bidding process to ensure complete transparency and competition iv) MSEDCL has proposed the terms and conditions of the Distribution Franchisee Agreement, which is a matter to be decided by each Licensee However, the Commission feels that every Distribution Licensee should evolve a Distribution Franchisee Agreement, which should be common to all its Franchisees selected through MoU route, and hence, non-discriminatory Also, a Distribution Franchisee cannot refuse if either the Developer or one of the Group of consumers comes forward to become a Franchisee The Commission further directs that the dispensation to become a Franchisee of the Distribution Licensee in the State will be available to all the following categories: a) Residential colonies b) Commercial buildings c) Multiplexes and malls (Emphasis added) d) Townships e) Other single point consumers like Railways, Defence, etc v) Over the past two to three years, the Commission has come across similar problems primarily in the case of existing Commercial and Office Complexes regarding supply at single point for distribution to mixed loads In such cases, the distribution licensees have neither installed the individual meters nor the subdistribution of electricity is being regulated in any manner Though the Commission has directed the licensees to formulate a practical solution for this problem, there has not been any significant progress Hence, the Commission is of the view that the practical solution being considered in the present case should be adopted for all such cases of supply at single point for further distribution to mixed loads, wherein one agency can be appointed as the Distribution Franchisee through the MoU route, and can supply to the individual users within the complex This will ensure that all such cases will come squarely within the provisions of the EA 2003, which is not the case now (Emphasis added) MERC _Order - Case No 135 of 2013 Page 6 of 13

7 vi) vii) However, in respect of Distribution Franchisees to be selected through the competitive bidding process, the licensees are free to prepare separate terms and conditions for each Franchisee Agreement, on a case by case basis It may be noted that in either case, the retail consumers cannot be charged a tariff higher or lower than that approved by the Commission for the same category of consumers in that licence area, and also, the responsibility of ensuring conformance with Standards of Performance, safety and all other relevant Regulations rests with the respective Licensees As regards availability of Open Access to the Distribution Franchisee to source power, the Commission holds that the right of eligible consumers to Open Access cannot be fettered in any manner irrespective of whether the Open Access is being sought for base power requirement or for sourcing the additional power to mitigate load shedding (Emphasis added) 12 The issue of supply on single point to commercial building / industrial complexes for mixed load was again addressed by the Commission in its Order dated 1 June, 2010 in Case No 75 of 2007 The Commission observed that the dispensation as set out in the Commission s Order dated 24 May, 2010 in Case No 62 of 2009 may also be applied in toto in all such cases The relevant extract of the Order is reproduced below: 29 The Commission noted that various complexes and multi storey buildings are coming up with number of consumers and common facilities within a complex or a building In such cases, it may be difficult and/or impracticable for Distribution Licensee to give supply to every consumer individually, especially if they are required to be connected at HT level The Commission has addressed this issue in its order dated May 24, 2010 in the matter of MSEDCL s Petition for In principle approval of MoU route for selection of Distribution Franchisee (Case No62 of 2009) and is of the view that the same dispensation as set out in Para 7 of the Commission order dated May 24, 2010 in the Case No 62 of 2009 may also be applied in toto in all such cases 30With the dispensation, the Commission directs that within one year from the date of this order, all distribution licensees in the State should enter into Franchise agreement with willing single point consumers either through MoU or Competitive bidding basis 13 An Appeal (Appeal No 155 of 2010 and Appeal No 156 of 2010) was preferred by the Mahratta Chamber of Commerce before the Hon ble Tribunal against the Commission s Order dated 1 June, 2010 in Case No 75 of 2007 Hon ble Tribunal passed the Judgment in the matter on 11 July, 2011 upholding the Commission s directions The relevant para is reproduced below: MERC _Order - Case No 135 of 2013 Page 7 of 13

8 26 In the ultimate analysis, we are to observe that the clarifications sought for on the queries by the appellants were given by the Commission and it is in this Tribunal that the queries were multiplied requiring answer from us but these queries are not subject-matter of any dispute and we do not find any fault with the order of the Commission 27 As we seriously mean that single point supply in the context in which the parties have understood the matter should be done away with for all time to come by making proper arrangements in the alternative as suggested in the Commission s impugned order we direct the Commission to enforce its order within a period of six months from the date of this order That is, the parties get six months time for implementation of the Commission s order 14 In view of the directions from Hon ble Tribunal, the Commission initiated Sou motu proceedings in Case No 108 of 2011 for implementing the directions issued by Hon ble Tribunal The Commission, in the Order provided a phase wise implementation program for enforcement and implementation of the Order dated 1 June 2010 in Case No 75 of 2007 Relevant para of the Order is reproduced below: 10 (ii) The Commission is of the view that the Commission could see to the enforcement and implementation of its Order dated 1st June 2010, by a phase wise implementation program as under: (A) The Distribution Licensees shall immediately, take steps to issue notices in newspapers in regard to the direction of the Hon ble Tribunal to implement the Commission s order with respect to single point supply The Distribution Licensees shall provide as much information sou motu to the public through various means of communications, including internet, so that information is disseminated widely and in such form and manner (through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means which is easily Accessible to the public (B) Simultaneously, the Distribution Licensees shall upload Model Franchisee Agreement on their Website, arranging special campaign, correspondence with such consumers etc (C) The Distribution Licensees shall within two months of this Order, file a report before the Commission on the status of single point supply in their respective areas; In view of above, the Commission directs that implementation of its Order dated 1st June 2010 and direction of the Hon ble Tribunal in its judgment dated 11th July, 2011 shall not be delayed on the ground that Franchisee Agreement is required to be approved by the Commission The Distribution Licensees should follow the guiding principles, herein below extracted, of the Commission in the Order dated 24th May 2010 while formulating Franchisee Agreements: MERC _Order - Case No 135 of 2013 Page 8 of 13

9 15 Analysis of above Orders of the Commission makes it clear that the Commission has adequately addressed the issues relating to supply on single point connections Necessary guiding principles for adopting the Distribution Franchisee model for single point supply cases have also been issued by the Commission in its earlier Orders 16 As explained in para 11 above, the Commission has directed vide its Order dated 24 May, 2010 in Case No 62 of 2009, that the dispensation to become a Franchisee of the Distribution Licensee in the State will be available to commercial complexes, Multiplexes and malls Further said para also reveals that the Commission has dealt with the issue regarding availability of Open Access to the Distribution Franchisee to source power In the said Order, the Commission has held that the right of eligible consumers to Open Access cannot be restricted in any manner irrespective of whether the Open Access is being sought for base power requirement or for sourcing the additional power to mitigate load shedding 17 In spite of Commission s guiding principles, directions for implementation of Distribution Franchisee Model, the Commission observes that there appears to be a lack of clarity as MSEDCL itself has submitted that it had erroneously allowed open Access to the M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd Accordingly, in view of the lack of clarity on the issue, MSEDCL need to issue a circular for implementation of Commission s directions and guiding principles on Distribution Franchisee model and provide necessary clarifications to all the stakeholders therein 18 Various aspects such as eligibility of Distribution Franchisee to source power on behalf of other occupants of the premise, allowing sub-distribution after entering into Distribution Franchisee Agreement, rights of individual occupier to get supply from Distribution licensee, rights of 1 MW and above consumer to avail Open Access etc can be a part of the Distribution Franchisee Agreement between the Distribution Licensee and the concerned Franchisee These aspects need to be clarified by MSEDCL in its circular 19 In view of above, MSEDCL is directed to issue a Circular on Franchisee agreement for single point supply to its field officers in line with directives of the Commission s Order dated 3 October, 2011 in Case No 108 of 2011, Order dated 1 June, 2010 in Case No 75 of 2007 and Order dated 24 May, 2010 in Case No 62 of 2009, clarifying all necessary aspects relating to the single point connections 20 As explained at para 11, the dispensation to become a Franchisee of the Distribution Licensee in the State is available to commercial complexes, Multiplexes and malls Therefore, M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd needs to enter into Distribution Franchisee Agreement with MSEDCL Operations of M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd as a Distribution Franchisee and its rights and responsibilities shall be governed by the MERC _Order - Case No 135 of 2013 Page 9 of 13

10 terms and conditions of Distribution Franchisee Agreement Further, the Commission is of the view that certain steps are required to be followed before M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd becomes eligible for open access to source the power Issuing the circular on Distribution Franchisee Agreement could be the first step Accordingly, till the time the circular is issued, MSEDCL is directed to permit Open Access permission to the Petitioners 21 MSEDCL is directed to expeditiously issue the circular in the above matter Summary of Findings: 22 Petitioners are wind generators and have entered into power sale agreement with M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd which is a consumer of MSEDCL M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd is Respondent No2 and MSEDCL is Respondent No1 in the matter 23 MSEDCL had granted Open Access permission to M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd for the period of 1 April, 2012 to 31 March, 2013 As M/s Inorbit Mall was desirous to continue with the facility, it again applied for open Access to MSEDCL well in advance prior to expiry of the earlier permission Vide dated 3 August, 2013 and letter dated 6 September, 2013, MSEDCL informed the Petitioner that the application for grant of open Access cannot be processed for third party sell to commercial complexes / malls 24 The permission for open Access has been denied by MSEDCL stating the reason that in case of commercial complexes / malls, single point HT supply is availed and it is extended to other entities in same premise Section 12 of the Electricity Act 2003 does not allow such extension of supply to other entities 25 MSEDCL has submitted that it had erroneously allowed open Access to the M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd MSEDCL has contended that the total contract demand of all occupants of M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd is 4920 KVA which represents group contract demand MSEDCL further mentioned that as per Regulation 3 of MERC (Distribution Open Access) Regulations, 2005, individual legal entities of M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd, ie its tenants or occupants do not meet the eligible criteria for Open Access 26 MSEDCL further submitted that M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd seeks further sub distribution of power availed from the petitioner, the same cannot be considered as own use as defined under the Act or MERC (Distribution Open Access ) Regulations, The Commission notes that the issue that is to be dealt with in this Petition is regarding the supply by distribution licensee on a single point connection to commercial premises such as multiplexes, malls etc Key issues to be addressed here are about the permission of Open Access by the Distribution Licensees to consumer for all its other occupants in such premises and further sub- MERC _Order - Case No 135 of 2013 Page 10 of 13

11 distribution within commercial premises by the consumers receiving supply on single point connection 28 The Commission in its Order dated 24 May, 2010 in Case No 62 of 2009, has addressed the issue of supply on single point connections The Commission has directed that the dispensation to become a Franchisee of the Distribution Licensee in the State will be available to commercial complexes, Multiplexes and Malls The Commission has provided certain guiding principles for Distribution Franchisee model to be adopted for single point connections The relevant Para of the Order dated 24 May, 2010 is reproduced below: 7 iv) The Commission further directs that the dispensation to become a Franchisee of the Distribution Licensee in the State will be available to all the following categories: a) Residential colonies b) Commercial buildings c) Multiplexes and malls vii) As regards availability of Open Access to the Distribution Franchisee to source power, the Commission holds that the right of eligible consumers to Open Access cannot be fettered in any manner irrespective of whether the Open Access is being sought for base power requirement or for sourcing the additional power to mitigate load shedding 29 The issue of supply on single point to commercial building / industrial complexes for mixed load was again dealt with by the Commission in its Order dated 1 June, 2010 in Case No 75 of 2007 The Commission observed that the dispensation as set out in the Commission s Order dated 24 May, 2010 in Case No 62 of 2009 may also be applied in toto in all such cases The relevant extract of the Order is reproduced below: 30 With the dispensation, the Commission directs that within one year from the date of this order, all distribution licensees in the State should enter into Franchise agreement with willing single point consumers either through MoU or Competitive bidding basis 30 Hon ble Tribunal upheld the Commission s Order dated 11 July, 2011 in Case No 75 of 2007 The Hon ble ATE further directed the Commission to enforce the aforesaid Order within six months from the date of Judgement of Tribunal MERC _Order - Case No 135 of 2013 Page 11 of 13

12 31 In view of the directions from Hon ble Tribunal, the Commission initiated Sou motu proceedings in Case No 108 of 2011 for implementing the directions issued by Hon ble Tribunal The Commission, in the Order provided a phase wise implementation program for enforcement and implementation of the Order dated 1 June 2010 in Case No 75 of Analysis of above Orders of the Commission makes it clear that the Commission has adequately addressed the issues relating to supply on single point connections Necessary guiding principles for adopting the Distribution Franchisee model for single point supply cases have also been issued by the Commission in its earlier Orders 33 As explained in para 11 above, the Commission has directed vide its Order dated 24 May, 2010 in Case No 62 of 2009, that the dispensation to become a Franchisee of the Distribution Licensee in the State will be available to commercial complexes, Multiplexes and malls Further, said para also reveals that the Commission has dealt with the issue regarding availability of Open Access to the Distribution Franchisee to source power In the said Order, the Commission has held that the right of eligible consumers to Open Access cannot be restricted in any manner irrespective of whether the Open Access is being sought for base power requirement or for sourcing the additional power to mitigate load shedding 34 In spite of Commission s guiding principles, directions for implementation of Distribution Franchisee Model, the Commission observes that there appears to be a lack of clarity as MSEDCL itself has submitted that it had erroneously allowed open Access to the M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd Accordingly, in view of the lack of clarity on the issue, MSEDCL need to issue a circular for implementation of Commission s directions and guiding principles on Distribution Franchisee model and provide necessary clarifications to all the stakeholders therein 35 Various aspects such as eligibility of Distribution Franchisee to source power on behalf of other occupants of the premise, allowing sub-distribution after entering into Distribution Franchisee Agreement, rights of individual occupier to get supply from Distribution licensee, rights of 1 MW and above consumer to avail Open Access etc can be a part of the Distribution Franchisee Agreement between the Distribution Licensee and the concerned Franchisee These aspects need to be clarified by MSEDCL in its circular 36 In view of above, MSEDCL is directed to issue a Circular on Franchisee agreement for single point supply to its field officers in line with directives of the Commission s Order dated 3 October, 2011 in Case No 108 of 2011, Order dated 1 June, 2010 in Case No 75 of 2007 and Order dated 24 May, 2010 in Case No 62 of 2009, clarifying all necessary aspects relating to the single point connections MERC _Order - Case No 135 of 2013 Page 12 of 13

13 37 As explained at para 11, the dispensation to become a Franchisee of the Distribution Licensee in the State is available to commercial complexes, Multiplexes and malls Therefore, M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd needs to enter into Distribution Franchisee Agreement with MSEDCL Operations of M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd as a Distribution Franchisee and its rights and responsibilities shall be governed by the terms and conditions of Distribution Franchisee Agreement Further, the Commission is of the view that certain steps are required to be followed before M/s Inorbit Malls (I) Pvt Ltd becomes eligible for open access to source the power Issuing the circular on Distribution Franchisee Agreement could be the first step Accordingly, till the time the circular is issued, MSEDCL is directed to permit Open Access permission to the Petitioners 38 MSEDCL is directed to expeditiously issue the circular in the above matter With the above, the Petition filed by M/s BSChannabasappa & Sons and M/s Shridevi trading company in Case No 135 of 2013 stands disposed off Sd/- (Chandra Iyengar) Member Sd/- (Vijay L Sonavane) Member MERC _Order - Case No 135 of 2013 Page 13 of 13

Grievances No.K/DOS/015/874 of and No. K/DOS/016/875 of

Grievances No.K/DOS/015/874 of and No. K/DOS/016/875 of Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Kalyan Zone Behind Tejashree", Jahangir Meherwanji Road, Kalyan (West) 421301 Ph 2210707, Fax 2210707, E-mail : cgrfkalyan@mahadiscom.in Date of Grievance : 08/10/2013

More information

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. s Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum Nagpur Urban Zone, Nagpur. Case No.

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. s Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum Nagpur Urban Zone, Nagpur. Case No. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. s Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum Nagpur Urban Zone, Nagpur Case No. CGRF(NUZ)/52/2012 Applicant : M/s. MPM Pvt.Ltd, M-22, MIDC, Hingna Road, Nagpur

More information

BEFORE THE GUJARAT ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AT GANDHINAGAR PETITION NO OF 2017

BEFORE THE GUJARAT ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AT GANDHINAGAR PETITION NO OF 2017 BEFORE THE GUJARAT ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of: AT GANDHINAGAR PETITION NO. 1643 OF 2017 Petition for deciding the maintainability and admissibility under GERC (Conduct of Business)

More information

CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION NEW DELHI

CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION NEW DELHI CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION NEW DELHI Coram: Dr. Pramod Deo, Chairperson Shri S. Jayaraman, Member Shri V.S. Verma, Member Shri M. Deena Dayalan, Member Date of Hearing: 20.11.2012 Date of

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: 07.03.2012 I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No.1674/2011 SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Through Mr. J.S. Mann, Adv....

More information

UTTAR PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION LUCKNOW. Notice dated U/s130 of Electricity Act2003.

UTTAR PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION LUCKNOW. Notice dated U/s130 of Electricity Act2003. UTTAR PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION LUCKNOW In the matter of : Notice dated 12.5.2007 U/s130 of Electricity Act2003. AND In the matter of : 1. Managing Director, U.P.Power Corporation Limited,

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 16 th February, Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 16 th February, Versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.815/2007 % Date of decision: 16 th February, 2010 OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.... Petitioner Through: Mr. V.N. Kaura with Ms. Paramjit Benipal

More information

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI. KANUBHAI M PATEL HUF - Petitioner(s) Versus

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI. KANUBHAI M PATEL HUF - Petitioner(s) Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5295 of 2010 WITH SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5296 OF 2010 AND SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5297 OF 2010 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus. 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus. 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 23 rd July, 2010. + W.P.(C) 11305/2009, CM No.10831/2009 (u/s 151 CPC for stay), CM No.9694/2010 (u/o1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleadment) & CM No.

More information

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION SCO NO , SECTOR 34-A, CHANDIGARH. Smt.Romila Dubey, Chairperson Shri Gurinder Jit Singh, Member

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION SCO NO , SECTOR 34-A, CHANDIGARH. Smt.Romila Dubey, Chairperson Shri Gurinder Jit Singh, Member PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION SCO NO. 220-221, SECTOR 34-A, CHANDIGARH Petition No.70 of 2014 Date of Order: 22.04.2015 Present: Smt.Romila Dubey, Chairperson Shri Gurinder Jit Singh,

More information

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 213/Hyd/2014 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Asst.

More information

in Electricity Sector

in Electricity Sector Department of Industrial and Management Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur Forum of Regulators 4 th Capacity Building Programme for Officers of Electricity Regulatory Commissions 18 23 July,

More information

Through : Mr.P.V.Kapur, Sr.Advocate with Mr.V.K.Nagrath, Mr.Abhay Varma & Mr.Sidhant Kapur, Advocates.

Through : Mr.P.V.Kapur, Sr.Advocate with Mr.V.K.Nagrath, Mr.Abhay Varma & Mr.Sidhant Kapur, Advocates. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY RESERVED ON : 27th NOVEMBER, 2014 DECIDED ON : 11th DECEMBER, 2014 CS (OS) 1980/2011 & CC No.21/2012 SHIV SHAKTI MADAN... Plaintiff Through

More information

THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES,

THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES, THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES, 2002 1 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 38 read with subsections (4), (10) and (12) of section

More information

ELECTRICITY REGULATIONS FOR COMPULSORY NORMS AND STANDARDS FOR RETICULATION SERVICES (GN R773 in GG of 18 July 2008)

ELECTRICITY REGULATIONS FOR COMPULSORY NORMS AND STANDARDS FOR RETICULATION SERVICES (GN R773 in GG of 18 July 2008) ELECTRICITY REGULATION ACT 4 OF 2006 [ASSENTED TO 27 JUNE 2006] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 1 AUGUST 2006] (except s. 34: 1 December 2004) (English text signed by the President) as amended by Electricity Regulation

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 C.R.P. 589/1998. Date of Decision: 6th March, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 C.R.P. 589/1998. Date of Decision: 6th March, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 C.R.P. 589/1998 Date of Decision: 6th March, 2009 SURINDER KAUR Through: Petitioner Ms. Nandni Sahni, Advocate. versus SARDAR

More information

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION SCO NO , SECTOR 34-A, CHANDIGARH

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION SCO NO , SECTOR 34-A, CHANDIGARH PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION SCO NO. 220-221, SECTOR 34-A, CHANDIGARH Petition No.49 of 2013 Date of Order: 18.11.2014 In the matter of: Petition for proposal regarding inclusion of availability

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.807/2008. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD & ANR. Petitioner Through: Mr Prem Kumar and Mr Sharad C.

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Judgment delivered on:

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Judgment delivered on: THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Judgment delivered on: 10.10.2013 OMP 234/2013 NSSL LIMITED...PETITIONER Vs HPCL-MITTAL ENERGY LIMITED & ANR....RESPONDENTS

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012. Versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012. Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012 DESIGN WORKS Through: Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Adv.... Appellant Versus ICICI BANK LTD... Respondent

More information

I have had the benefit of perusing the judgment of my. esteemed learned brother, Hon ble Justice Shri S.B. Sinha,

I have had the benefit of perusing the judgment of my. esteemed learned brother, Hon ble Justice Shri S.B. Sinha, TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI DATED 18 th JULY, 2011 Petition No. 275 (C) of 2009 Reliance Communications Limited.. Petitioner Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited..... Respondent

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + W.P.(C) No.2037/1992 & CM No.3935/1992 (for interim relief). Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + W.P.(C) No.2037/1992 & CM No.3935/1992 (for interim relief). Versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 20 th September, 2010. + W.P.(C) No.2037/1992 & CM No.3935/1992 (for interim relief). % SH. SATISH CHAND KAPOOR (DECEASED) THROUGH LR s Through:...

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + W.P.(C) 4784/2014 and CM No.9529/2014 (Stay)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + W.P.(C) 4784/2014 and CM No.9529/2014 (Stay) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4784/2014 and CM No.9529/2014 (Stay) Pronounced on: December 11, 2015 M/S IMS MERCANTILES PVT. LTD.... Petitioner Through: Mr.Bharat Gupta with Mr.Saurabh

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. OF 2017 IN Writ Petition (Civil) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. OF 2017 IN Writ Petition (Civil) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. OF 2017 IN Writ Petition (Civil) No. 131/2013 AND IN THE MATTER OF: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANR. PETITIONER

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: RSA No.46/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: RSA No.46/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: 10.3.2011 RSA No.46/2011 VIRENDER KUMAR & ANR. Through: Mr.Atul Kumar, Advocate...Appellants Versus JASWANT RAI

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 1021 OF 2016 M/s Andrew Telecommunications India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. N-2, Phase IV, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna, Salcette, Goa-403 722, India.

More information

FINAL ORDER NO /2014 APPEAL NO. E/58979 OF 2013 SEPTEMBER 3, 2014

FINAL ORDER NO /2014 APPEAL NO. E/58979 OF 2013 SEPTEMBER 3, 2014 Cenvat Credit : If sales are on FOR basis, with risk being borne by manufacturer till delivery to customer and composite value of sales includes value of freight involved in delivery at customer's premises,

More information

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) DISTRICT : KOLKATA IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P. No. (W) of 2017 In the matter of :- An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ;

More information

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW COURT NO 2. OA 274/2014 with MA 1802/2014. Thursday, this the 16th of Feb 2015

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW COURT NO 2. OA 274/2014 with MA 1802/2014. Thursday, this the 16th of Feb 2015 1 RESERVED ORDER A.F.R ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW COURT NO 2 OA 274/2014 with MA 1802/2014 Thursday, this the 16th of Feb 2015 Hon ble Mr. Justice Virendra Kumar DIXIT, Judicial Member

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005. Judgment decided on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005. Judgment decided on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1956 W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005 Judgment decided on: 14.02.2011 C.D. SINGH Through: Mr Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate....Petitioner

More information

BERMUDA COPYRIGHT TRIBUNAL RULES 2014 BR 11 / 2014

BERMUDA COPYRIGHT TRIBUNAL RULES 2014 BR 11 / 2014 QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA COPYRIGHT TRIBUNAL RULES 2014 BR 11 / 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 PART 1 PRELIMINARY Citation Interpretation Overriding objective Tribunal

More information

M/S UTC FIRE & SECURITY INDIA LTD Through: Ms Jasleen K. Oberoi and Ms Surbhi Mehta, Advs.

M/S UTC FIRE & SECURITY INDIA LTD Through: Ms Jasleen K. Oberoi and Ms Surbhi Mehta, Advs. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 O.M.P. 529/2014 Judgement reserved on: 08.12.2014 Judgement pronounced on: 27.01.2015. M/S UTC FIRE & SECURITY INDIA

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1534 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.1439 of 2017) N. Harihara Krishnan Appellant Versus J. Thomas Respondent

More information

CLASS PROCEEDINGS ACT

CLASS PROCEEDINGS ACT Province of Alberta Statutes of Alberta, Current as of December 17, 2014 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer 7 th Floor, Park Plaza 10611-98 Avenue Edmonton,

More information

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. s Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum Nagpur Urban Zone, Nagpur. Case No. CGRF(NUZ)/040/2009

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. s Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum Nagpur Urban Zone, Nagpur. Case No. CGRF(NUZ)/040/2009 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. s Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum Nagpur Urban Zone, Nagpur Case No. CGRF(NUZ)/040/2009 Applicant : Shri Pratap Jaykisan Kanjwani At, 116, Chikhali,

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6105/2011. % SADHNA BHARDWAJ.. Petitioner Through: Mr. Dipak Bhattarcharya, Adv.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6105/2011. % SADHNA BHARDWAJ.. Petitioner Through: Mr. Dipak Bhattarcharya, Adv. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6105/2011 Date of decision: 1 st September, 2011 % SADHNA BHARDWAJ.. Petitioner Through: Mr. Dipak Bhattarcharya, Adv. Versus THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Reserved on: 5th August, Date of decision: 19th September, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Reserved on: 5th August, Date of decision: 19th September, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Reserved on: 5th August, 2011 Date of decision: 19th September, 2011 FAO(OS) 502/2009 LT. COL S.D. SURIE Through: -versus-..appellant

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO OF 2015) VERSUS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO OF 2015) VERSUS REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 12581 OF 2015) THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, MYSORE & ANR....APPELLANT(S)

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8 TH DAY OF APRIL 2015 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO.57422 OF 2013 (CESTAT)

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L)NO OF 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L)NO OF 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L)NO. 2348 OF 2014 wp-2348-2014.sxw Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority.. Petitioner. V/s. The

More information

PROCEDURE FOR REGISTRATION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION PROJECT BY CENTRAL AGENCY

PROCEDURE FOR REGISTRATION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION PROJECT BY CENTRAL AGENCY Draft Dated 17_March_2010 PROCEDURE FOR REGISTRATION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION PROJECT BY CENTRAL AGENCY 1. OBJECTIVE 1.1. This procedure shall provide guidance to the entities to implement Renewable

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO(OS) No.534/2010 & CM Nos /2010. versus. % Date of Hearing : August 25, 2010

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO(OS) No.534/2010 & CM Nos /2010. versus. % Date of Hearing : August 25, 2010 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) No.534/2010 & CM Nos.15238-40/2010 RAJ KUMAR BARI & ORS...Appellant through Mr. S.D. Singh & Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advs. versus SHIV RANI & ORS...Respondent

More information

Judgment Sheet. IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.

Judgment Sheet. IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. Stereo. HCJDA.38. Judgment Sheet. IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. Case No. W.P.No.1671/2014 AN Industries (Private) Limited Versus Federation of Pakistan etc Date of hearing 27.10.2016

More information

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) http://judis.nic.in SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5656-5914 1990 PETITIONER: THE GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU Vs. RESPONDENT: PV. ENTER. REP. BY SCM JAMULUDEEN & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 WP(C) No.14332/2004 Pronounced on : 14.03.2008 Sanjay Kumar Jha...

More information

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL (WESTERN ZONE) BENCH, PUNE APPLICATION NO.35 OF 2014 HON BLE SHRI JUSTICE V.R. KINGAONKAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL (WESTERN ZONE) BENCH, PUNE APPLICATION NO.35 OF 2014 HON BLE SHRI JUSTICE V.R. KINGAONKAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL (WESTERN ZONE) BENCH, PUNE APPLICATION NO.35 OF 2014 CORAM : HON BLE SHRI JUSTICE V.R. KINGAONKAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) HON BLE DR. AJAY A.DESHPANDE (EXPERT MEMBER) B E T

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PROPERTY WILL MATTER Reserved on: Pronounced on: RFA (OS) 14/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PROPERTY WILL MATTER Reserved on: Pronounced on: RFA (OS) 14/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PROPERTY WILL MATTER Reserved on: 10.12.2013 Pronounced on: 15.01.2014 RFA (OS) 14/2013 CAP. VIJAY KUMAR TREHAN.Appellant Through: Sh. Anil Amrit with

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PATIL AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PATIL AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13 TH DAY OF MAY 2014 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PATIL AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR BETWEEN WRIT APPEAL NO.2828

More information

CRP No. 216/2014 VERSUS. Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. CRP No. 220/2014 VERSUS. Bajrang Tea manufacturing Co. [P] Ltd.

CRP No. 216/2014 VERSUS. Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. CRP No. 220/2014 VERSUS. Bajrang Tea manufacturing Co. [P] Ltd. IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) The Federal Bank Ltd. Petitioner VERSUS Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. Respondents CRP No. 220/2014 The Federal

More information

BIHAR ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

BIHAR ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION BIHAR ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION Vidyut Bhawan-II, J.L. Nehru Marg, Patna 800 021. Case No. 39/2016 IN THE MATTER OF:- PETITION UNDER SECTION 142 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 FOR NON COMPLIANCE

More information

Amendments made in Indirect-Tax Law. Amendments relating to Central Excise

Amendments made in Indirect-Tax Law. Amendments relating to Central Excise Amendments made in Indirect-Tax Law Amendments relating to Central Excise 1. Amendment of section 3A In the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) (hereinafter referred to as the Central Excise Act), in

More information

- versus - MAHAMEDHA URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ORS

- versus - MAHAMEDHA URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ORS IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION Judgment Reserved on: 24th February, 2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 28th February, 2011 CS(OS) No. 2305/2010 SUSHMA SURI & ANR... Plaintiffs

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COMPANIES ACT, 1956 CRL.M.C. No. 179/2010 Judgment delivered on: 20th December, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COMPANIES ACT, 1956 CRL.M.C. No. 179/2010 Judgment delivered on: 20th December, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COMPANIES ACT, 1956 CRL.M.C. No. 179/2010 Judgment delivered on: 20th December, 2011 MOHAN LAL & ANR.... Petitioner Through : Mr. N.K. Kaul, Sr. Adv. with

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH APPELLATE DIVISION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH APPELLATE DIVISION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH APPELLATE DIVISION PRESENT: Mr. Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha. Mr. Justice Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah. Mr. Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain. Mr. Justice Md. Shamsul Huda. CIVIL

More information

DRAFT RULES UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013

DRAFT RULES UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 DRAFT RULES UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 CHAPTER XX COMPANIES (WINDING UP) RULES 2013 Ministry of Corporate Affairs Notification New Delhi Dated GSR No..:- In exercise of the powers conferred by section

More information

IDBI Bank Ltd. Internal Ombudsman Scheme 2014

IDBI Bank Ltd. Internal Ombudsman Scheme 2014 IDBI Bank Ltd. Internal Ombudsman Scheme 2014 IDBI Bank s Internal Ombudsman Scheme 2014 1. Objective: 1.01 The Internal Ombudsman Scheme 2014 is introduced with the objective of enabling customers of

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CHANGE OF LAND USE MATTER Date of Decision: W.P.(C) 5180/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CHANGE OF LAND USE MATTER Date of Decision: W.P.(C) 5180/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CHANGE OF LAND USE MATTER Date of Decision: 25.04.2013 W.P.(C) 5180/2012 NEERA SHARMA... Petitioner Through: Mr S.K. Rungta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Prashant

More information

CRP No. 429 of The Ahmed Tea Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., K.N.C.B. Path, Boiragimath, Dibrugarh, Assam, represented by its Director Mrs. Nazrana A. Islam.

CRP No. 429 of The Ahmed Tea Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., K.N.C.B. Path, Boiragimath, Dibrugarh, Assam, represented by its Director Mrs. Nazrana A. Islam. THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) CRP No. 429 of 2008 The Ahmed Tea Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., K.N.C.B. Path, Boiragimath, Dibrugarh, Assam, represented by its

More information

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM OPERATOR LICENCE GRANTED TO. Gaslink Independent System Operator Limited. Consultation Paper

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM OPERATOR LICENCE GRANTED TO. Gaslink Independent System Operator Limited. Consultation Paper TRANSMISSION SYSTEM OPERATOR LICENCE GRANTED TO Gaslink Independent System Operator Limited Consultation Paper CER/08/078 [ ] 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I: PART II: Condition 1: Condition 2: Condition

More information

Sangeeta Verma Secretary. No. Secy/ UPERC/Supply Code/ Lucknow: Dated Sir,

Sangeeta Verma Secretary. No. Secy/ UPERC/Supply Code/ Lucknow: Dated Sir, Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission Kisan Mandi Bhawan, II Floor, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010 Phone 2720821 Fax 2720423 E-mail secretary@uperc.org Sangeeta Verma Secretary No. Secy/ UPERC/Supply

More information

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI Company Appeals (AT) No.101 to 105 of 2017 (arising out of Order dated 06.02.2017 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi in CP Nos. 16/152/2015,

More information

CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD No.1,Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai

CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD No.1,Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD No.1,Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai - 600 002. APPLICATION FOR WATER / SEWER CONNECTION THE AREA ENGINEER Water Application No. Sewer Application

More information

Regd. Off.: First Floor, Malkani Chambers, Off. Nehru Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai NOTICE

Regd. Off.: First Floor, Malkani Chambers, Off. Nehru Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai NOTICE Regd. Off.: First Floor, Malkani Chambers, Off. Nehru Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai 400 099 CIN: U74999MH2007PLC169201 NOTICE Notice is hereby given that an Extra-ordinary General Meeting (EGM) of the

More information

Case :- SERVICE BENCH No of Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla,J. Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh-I,J.

Case :- SERVICE BENCH No of Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla,J. Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh-I,J. -1- Court No. - 2 Reserved Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 1345 of 2014 Petitioner :- Junaid Ahmad Respondent :- Visitor Interal University Lko./His Excellency The Governor Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION. CM No of 2005 in W.P. (C) No of 1987

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION. CM No of 2005 in W.P. (C) No of 1987 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION CM No. 15134 of 2005 in W.P. (C) No. 1043 of 1987 Orders reserved on : 26th July, 2006 Date of Decision : 7th August, 2006 LATE BAWA HARBANS

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Pronounced on: 16th October, 2014 CS (OS) NO. 1804/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Pronounced on: 16th October, 2014 CS (OS) NO. 1804/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Pronounced on: 16th October, 2014 CS (OS) NO. 1804/2012 MRS. VEENA SETH Through: Ms. Kamlesh Mahajan, Advocate... Plaintiff Versus

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER W.P.(C) No.9681/2009 Judgment decided on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER W.P.(C) No.9681/2009 Judgment decided on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER W.P.(C) No.9681/2009 Judgment decided on: 11.03.2011 RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA...Petitioner Through: Mr Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Sr. Adv. with Mr Piyush

More information

Labour Court Rules, 2006 ARRANGEMENT OF RULES PART I

Labour Court Rules, 2006 ARRANGEMENT OF RULES PART I DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS TRUST Tel: [263] [4] 794478 Fax & Messages [263] [4] 793592 E-mail: veritas@mango.zw VERITAS MAKES EVERY EFFORT TO ENSURE THE PROVISION OF RELIABLE INFORMATION, BUT CANNOT TAKE LEGAL

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP( C ) NO (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP( C ) NO (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP( C ) NO.. 2017 (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) IN THE MATTER OF : JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA S/o Sh.Prabhu Dayal Sukhija R/o 174, IInd Floor, Avtar

More information

Application Form for New Connection

Application Form for New Connection 40 [ Application Form for New Connection Annexure 1 Photograph of the Applicant (For office use only) Name of Division Name of Sub-division Unique Application Number Date of receipt (To be filled by the

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. W.P. Crl. No. 1029/2010. Decided on: 9th August, 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. W.P. Crl. No. 1029/2010. Decided on: 9th August, 2011. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE W.P. Crl. No. 1029/2010 Decided on: 9th August, 2011. DEEPAK GARG Through: Mr. Vijay Agarwal, Advocate.... Petitioner versus

More information

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI IN THE MATTER OF SEELAN RAJ.... PETITIONER Vs PRESIDING OFFICER 1 ST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON BLE COURT IN EXCERSISE

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) Nos.53/2015 & 54/ CS(COMM) No. 53/2015 and I.A. No.25929/2015 (stay)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) Nos.53/2015 & 54/ CS(COMM) No. 53/2015 and I.A. No.25929/2015 (stay) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) Nos.53/2015 & 54/2015 % 21 st December, 2015 1. CS(COMM) No. 53/2015 and I.A. No.25929/2015 (stay) BIGTREE ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.... Plaintiff Through:

More information

Final Judgment on Police Protection Case by Supreme Court Of India 2007 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Final Judgment on Police Protection Case by Supreme Court Of India 2007 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Final Judgment on Police Protection Case by Supreme Court Of India 2007 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5460-5466 OF 2004 MORAN M. BASELIOS MARTHOMA MATHEWS

More information

DRAFT RULES UNDER COMPANIES ACT 2013 CHAPTER XV COMPROMISES, ARRANGEMENT AND AMALGAMATIONS

DRAFT RULES UNDER COMPANIES ACT 2013 CHAPTER XV COMPROMISES, ARRANGEMENT AND AMALGAMATIONS DRAFT RULES UNDER COMPANIES ACT 2013 CHAPTER XV COMPROMISES, ARRANGEMENT AND AMALGAMATIONS 15.1 Application for order of a meeting (1) An application along with a Notice of Admission supported by an affidavit

More information

MUMBAI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD (MMRC)

MUMBAI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD (MMRC) MUMBAI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD (MMRC) E-TENDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR APPOINTMENT OF SECRETARIAL AUDITOR FOR FY 2015-16 TO MEET THE COMPLIANCE OF SECRETARIAL AUDIT U/S 204 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS. C.R.P. (NPD) No. 574 of Decided On:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS. C.R.P. (NPD) No. 574 of Decided On: MANU/TN/3588/2011 Equivalent Citation: 2011(6)CTC11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS C.R.P. (NPD) No. 574 of 2011 Decided On: 26.08.2011 Appellants: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Respondent: Sivakama Sundari

More information

The Class Actions Act

The Class Actions Act 1 CLASS ACTIONS c. C-12.01 The Class Actions Act being Chapter C-12.01 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2001 (effective January 1, 2002) as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2007, c.21; and 2015,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT, 1949 W.P.(C) 1345/2011 DATE OF ORDER :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT, 1949 W.P.(C) 1345/2011 DATE OF ORDER : IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT, 1949 W.P.(C) 1345/2011 DATE OF ORDER : 14.03.2013 GUPTA AND GUPTA AND ANR Through: Mr. Sumit Thakur, Advocate.... Petitioners

More information

(2) Portland and Brunswick Squares Association

(2) Portland and Brunswick Squares Association IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER (INFORMATION RIGHTS) Case No. EA/2010/0012 ON APPEAL FROM: Information Commissioner Decision Notice ref FER0209326 Dated 10 December 2010 Appellant:

More information

DETAILED PROCEDURE FOR GRANT OF CONNECTIVITY & OPEN ACCESS IN INTRA-STATE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM

DETAILED PROCEDURE FOR GRANT OF CONNECTIVITY & OPEN ACCESS IN INTRA-STATE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM DETAILED PROCEDURE FOR GRANT OF CONNECTIVITY & OPEN ACCESS IN INTRA-STATE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM 1. Introduction: 1.1 The Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission notified KSERC (Connectivity and Intra-state

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.571 OF 2017

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.571 OF 2017 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.571 OF 2017 Om Sai Punya Educational and Social Welfare Society & Another.Petitioners Versus All India Council

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: GITHINJI, SICHALE & KANTAI, JJ. A CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI 97 OF 2016 (UR 76/2016)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: GITHINJI, SICHALE & KANTAI, JJ. A CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI 97 OF 2016 (UR 76/2016) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: GITHINJI, SICHALE & KANTAI, JJ. A CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI 97 OF 2016 (UR 76/2016) BETWEEN SATROSE AYUMA... 1 ST APPLICANT JOSEPH SHIKANGA....2 ND APPLICANT JOSEPH

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 332/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 16th January, 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 332/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 16th January, 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 332/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 16th January, 2014 RAJ KUMARI DEVI & ORS. Through: Mr. Rajnish K. Jha, Advocate....

More information

KNOWLEDGE REPONERE. (A Weekly Bulletin) (06 to 10, 13 to 17 and 20 to 24 November, 2017)

KNOWLEDGE REPONERE. (A Weekly Bulletin) (06 to 10, 13 to 17 and 20 to 24 November, 2017) KNOWLEDGE REPONERE (A Weekly Bulletin) (06 to 10, 13 to 17 and 20 to 24 November, 2017) All rights reserved. No part of this Publication may be translated or copied in any form or by any means without

More information

IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai TENDER NOTICE. Supply & installation of MS Slotted Angle Racks

IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai TENDER NOTICE. Supply & installation of MS Slotted Angle Racks IDBI Bank Limited IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005 TENDER NOTICE Supply & installation of MS Slotted Angle Racks IDBI Bank Ltd. invites tenders from interested parties for supply &

More information

(Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion)

(Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) The Registration and Licensing of Industrial Undertakings Rules, 1952 (As amended up to the 4 th October, 2012) 1. *S.R.O. 1141 dated the 9 th July, 1952.-

More information

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI A BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri R.K. Gupta (Judicial Member) and Shri Pramod Kumar (Accountant Member)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI A BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri R.K. Gupta (Judicial Member) and Shri Pramod Kumar (Accountant Member) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI A BENCH, MUMBAI Before Shri R.K. Gupta (Judicial Member) and Shri Pramod Kumar (Accountant Member) Stay Petition No.13/Mum./2010 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Date

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No of 2014) versus

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No of 2014) versus IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13361 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29621 of 2014) Rakesh Mohindra Anita Beri and others versus Appellant (s)

More information

Crl. Rev. P. No. 5 of 2017

Crl. Rev. P. No. 5 of 2017 Crl. Rev. P. No. 5 of 2017 BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK 31.07.2017 Heard Mr. Pallab Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Nava Kumar Kalita, learned Additional Public

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957 JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957 JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957 JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 25.01.2012 JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON: 15.02.2012 W.P.(C.) NOS. 520/2012 & 521/2012

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO of 2008 BHARGAVA & ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.& ORS...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO of 2008 BHARGAVA & ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.& ORS... 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5099 of 2008 BHARGAVA & ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.& ORS... APPELLANTS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.. RESPONDENTS W I T H CIVIL APPEAL

More information

MATRIX CONTAINING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS COURT RULES

MATRIX CONTAINING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS COURT RULES MATRIX CONTAINING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS COURT RULES RULE NO. CURRENT PROVISION PROPOSED CHANGES REMARKS 1. Citation: - These Rules may be cited as the Industrial Court

More information

CHAPATER XVII APPEAL, REVISION, REVIEW PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. 1. Orders against which appeal lies. an order enhancing a penalty;

CHAPATER XVII APPEAL, REVISION, REVIEW PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. 1. Orders against which appeal lies. an order enhancing a penalty; CHAPATER XVII APPEAL, REVISION, REVIEW PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS 1. Orders against which appeal lies Under Rule 23 of CCA Rules, a Government servant including a person who has ceased to be in Government

More information

Through :Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Ms. Abhiruchi Arora, Mr. Akhil Sachar and Ms. Jaishree Shukla, Advs.

Through :Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Ms. Abhiruchi Arora, Mr. Akhil Sachar and Ms. Jaishree Shukla, Advs. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IA No. 16809/2010 (u/o 7 R 10 & 11 r/w Sec. 151 CPC) in CS(OS) No. 1830/2010 IA No. 16756/2010 (u/o 7 R 10 & 11 r/w Sec. 151 CPC)

More information

Government of Pakistan Ministry of Commerce ***** NOTIFICATION. (a) Act means the Trade Organizations Act, 2013 (II of 2013);

Government of Pakistan Ministry of Commerce ***** NOTIFICATION. (a) Act means the Trade Organizations Act, 2013 (II of 2013); Government of Pakistan Ministry of Commerce ***** Islamabad, the 26 th March, 2013. NOTIFICATION 4(2)/2013-Admn-III. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 31 of the Trade Organizations Act, 2013

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. MAC App. No. 453 of Judgment reserved on:25th November, Judgment delivered on: 2nd December, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. MAC App. No. 453 of Judgment reserved on:25th November, Judgment delivered on: 2nd December, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 1. Smt. Rani W/o Late Shri Jai Kumar Mittal SUBJECT : Motor Vehicle Act,1988 MAC App. No. 453 of 2008 Judgment reserved on:25th November, 2008 Judgment delivered

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.595/2003 Reserved on: 4th January, 2012 Pronounced on: 13th January, 2012 SHRI VIRENDER SINGH Through: Mr. R.C. Chopra,

More information

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Arbitration Petition No. 21 of 2017 KLA Const. Technologies Private Limited..Petitioner Versus Kajima India Private Limited Respondent Present:- Dr. Amit George,

More information

Electricity Retail Licence. NewRet Pty Ltd

Electricity Retail Licence. NewRet Pty Ltd Electricity Retail Licence NewRet Pty Ltd ERL23, Version 1, 24 March 2015 Electricity Industry Act 2004 (WA) Retail Licence Licensee Name: NewRet Pty Ltd ABN: 27 603 402 400 Licensee Address: GPO Box 909

More information