Judicial Directions - The Legal Chamber

Who Pays for Unpaid Power Bills? Supreme Court Explains ‘Regulatory Asset’ Mess and Orders a Fix

6Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Who Pays for Unpaid Power Bills? Supreme Court Explains ‘Regulatory Asset’ Mess and Orders a Fix

The Supreme Court ruled that Regulatory Assets, while a valid regulatory tool, must be created only in exceptional circumstances and liquidated in a time-bound manner. It upheld the legal framework under the Electricity Act, 2003, and directed strict adherence to the newly inserted Rule 23 of the Electricity Rules, which mandates a maximum 3% gap in revenue and a 7-year liquidation period for existing assets. The judgment emphasizes the duty of Regulatory Commissions to ensure cost-reflective tariffs and affirms APTEL's power under Section 121 to issue directions against regulatory failure. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from petitions and appeals filed by three private power distribution companies (Discoms) in Delhi—BSES Rajdhani, BSES Yamuna, and Tata Power Delhi—agains...

Accused Can’t “Buy” Bail: Supreme Court Ends Practice of Monetary Undertakings for Release

This Supreme Court judgment prohibits courts from granting bail based on monetary undertakings or deposits by the accused. It directs that all bail applications must be decided strictly on their own merits, in accordance with law, and not on any extraneous promises of payment. The practice of imposing financial conditions for bail deprecated to uphold the integrity of the judicial process. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Gajanan Gore, was arrested in August 2023 for allegedly siphoning approximately ₹1.6 crore from his employer, an advertising and training institute. He was charged with various offences including cheating and forgery under the Indian Penal Code. After the Trial Court denied him bail, the Bombay High Court granted him bail in April 2024. This bail was contingent on a ke...

Supreme Court : No More Delays! High Court Must Decide Property Dispute in 6 Months

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's second remand order for de-novo disposal, finding it erroneous given the possibility of deciding the appeal based on the interpretation of existing documents (sale deed, conveyance deed, and settlement deed). The Court directed the High Court to decide the appeal on its merits expeditiously within six months. Facts Of The Case: This appeal challenges a judgment from the High Court of Kerala, which set aside a trial court's dismissal of a suit and remanded the matter for de-novo disposal. The dispute concerns 9 cents of land in Poomthura Village, Ernakulam. The appellant's father executed a sale deed in 1955 for "Verumpattom Rights" over land in Survey No. 1236. Later, in 1964, he executed a conveyance deed for "Jenmam ...