Electricity Act, 2003 — Sec. 125 — Civil Appeal filed by a company under against the Judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), which affirmed the Order of the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (UPERC)— observation- perusal of the Regulation compels us to conclude that the UPERC had jurisdiction to entertain a petition praying for investigation under Section 128— Therefore, in our considered view, the first issue must be answered against the appellant. In the same breath, we also clarify that as a principle of law, the ERCs are not competent to entertain a matter on the singular ground of public interest— Accordingly, we answer this issue in negative— held- Supreme Court held that the Electricity Regulatory Commissions (ERCs) are not competent to entertain cases on a singular ground of public interest- language of Section 128 of the Electricity Act is clear inasmuch as it places the onus of initiating an investigation on the appropriate commission, which is either the Central ERC or the State ERCs- while consumer interest is an important consideration in the overall scheme of the Act, 2003, it remains to be seen whether the ERCs have jurisdiction to entertain Petitions in respect of disputes between consumers and distribution licensees/franchisees- that unless some satisfactory grounds are given for initiating an investigation, a Petition or an Application under Section 128 cannot be held to be maintainable.
Held: (Para 69-79)
Result: Appeal allowed
Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996 — case pertaining to the acquisition of 472 acres of land under the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996, where orders had already been passed for reissuance of DRCs/ TDRs, the Supreme Court has observed that the State and its officials had used all its might to stifle the orders and had made a show of having complied with the order by depositing the incorrect and improper DRCs / TDRs- observation- any further condition if being imposed in these proceedings it would amount to tinkering or altering or reviewing or modifying the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022- pleadings in these proceedings would disclose that subsequent to the order of this Court dated 10.12.2024, notice came to be issued by the Deputy Commissioner, BBMP on 31.12.2024 and 15.01.2025, whereunder the complainants were called upon to submit an undertaking in the format which was enclosed to the said notice dated 15.01.2025- held- the State and its officials having used all its might to stifle the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022, passed by this Court and having made a show of having complied with the order by depositing the incorrect and improper DRC's / TDR's, which was not in due compliance of orders of this Court and this Court not being in agreement with the submissions made by the learned senior counsel, on 20.03.2025 on behalf of contemnors- directed that the TDRs / DRCs already deposited by the State be handed over to the respective complainants or their authorized representative by the Registry forthwith on affidavits of undertaking.
Held: (Para 9-14)
Result: Appeal disposed of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sec. 37 —Civil Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench which dismissed the Appeal filed High Court had dismissed an Appeal filed under Section 37 of the A&C Act and affirmed the Order of the Commercial Court and Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal allowing Application filed by the Respondent i.e., Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Limited (MPRDC) under Section 34— Respondent suffered an award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal which was challenged under Section 34- Respondent's Appeal was allowed on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass the award in view of the provisions of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (MP Act)- Held- any awards that have already been made and if no objection to the jurisdiction was taken at the relevant stage, then the award may not be annulled 'only' on that ground of lack of jurisidiction- set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, and restore the proceedings in Arbitration casw to the court of Commercial Court and 19th Upper District Judge for deciding all other issues on merit that may have been raised by the respondent in its petition under Section 34 of the Act, 1996— the appeal is disposed of
Held: (Para 36-41)
Result: Appeal disposed of
Provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (PMLA) and Maharashtra Protection of Investors and Depositors Act, 1999 (MPID Act), by virtue of the Provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and RDB Act, 1993; (In view of order dated 10.08.2023 passed by the Committee) Writ Petition — civil case— which took place at the Commodity Exchange Platform of the Petitioner Company - National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL), a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, on 18.05.2005. It is promoted by 63 Moons Technologies Limited (Formerly Financial Technologies India Limited), which holds 99.99% of total share capital of the company and the National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Limited (NAFED) holds 0.01% of total share capital of company-Exchange Platform of the NSEL committed payment defaults and fraud aggregating to about Rs.5,600 Crores vis-à-vis their trading counterparts numbering about 13,000 traders who traded through its Members/ brokers- Observation- monies or deposits of depositors/investors, who have been allegedly defrauded by the Financial Establishment, and for the recovery of which the MPID Act has been enacted, could not be said to be a 'debt' contemplated in Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act (Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002)- held- Secured Creditors cannot claim priority of interest against the properties attached under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act)- no priority of interest can be claimed by the Secured Creditors against the properties attached under the MPID Act and that the provisions of MPID Act would override any claim for priority of interest by the Secured Creditors in respect of the properties which have been attached under the MPID Act— In absence of any inconsistency having been brought on record, between the provisions contained in the MPID Act and in the IBC, Section 238 of IBC, which gives overriding effect to the IBC over the other Acts for the time being in force, cannot be said to have been attracted- the properties of the Judgment Debtors and Garnishees attached under the provisions of the MPID Act, would be available for the execution of the decrees against the Judgment Debtors by the S.C. Committee, despite the provision of Moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC.
Held: (Para 40-53)
Result:
Constitution of India, 1950 —Art. 14—,.Service Law—Government Order issued in 2016 withdrawing the benefit of an earlier order of 2013 whereby the services of physically disabled persons against supernumerary posts were asked to be regularized—Challenge- observation— intention was to give regular appointments to those persons with disability who were working on temporary posts through the employment exchange and grant permanency to those persons with disability- many appellants based on the 2013 G.O. changed their position and opted for other employment for securing the benefits under the G.O.— the 2016 G.O. sought to withdraw what was specifically conferred by the 2013 and hence was discriminatory in nature- HELD- The G.O. dated 18th May, 2013, is to ensure that the persons with disability appointed through the employment exchange in a particular post should be regularly appointed—Therefore, all of them were appointed on probation. Now, by the subsequent G.O. dated 3rd February 2016, what is conferred on the appellants by the G.O. dated 18th May 2013 cannot be withdrawn— many appellants based on the G.O. dated 18th May 2013 changed their position and opted for other employment for securing the benefits under the G.O. — G.O. contemplates regular appointments to be given. Clause 3.5 of the G.O. dated 3rd February, 2016 seeks to withdraw what is specifically conferred by the G.O. dated 18th May 2013. Hence, the G.O. dated 3rd February 2016 is discriminatory and irrational and therefore, violative."
Held: (Para 17-24)
Result: Appeals allowed
We feel pleasure to introduce ourselves as founder of the "Daily" reporter of Hon'ble Supreme Court & Delhi High Court Decisions, covering all the reportable, non-reportable judgments, Bail matters & important orders daily. The Journal "Apex-Decisions" is known for its prompt & complete reporting of Hon'ble Supreme Court & Delhi High Court judgments / orders every day since 1993.
Copyright © 2022 Apex Decisions Software, All rights Reserved. Designed By Techdost
