Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
7 judgments · newest first · showing 1–7
The Supreme Court examined a petition filed by an individual (respondent No.4) before the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (UPERC) seeking an investigation under Section 128 of the Electricity Act, 2003 into a Distribution Franchisee Agreement (DFA) between Torrent Power Limited (the …
The Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation (UPPCL) advertised for 2,211 Technician Grade‑II posts requiring a Certificate of 80‑hour Course on Computer Concepts (CCC) to be produced at the interview. Candidates who produced the CCC certificate at the interview were selected and issued appointment letters …
The Supreme Court examined whether a policy decision of the Uttar Pradesh Government dated 14‑June‑2006, which provided a flat‑rate electricity subsidy for power‑loom bunkers, could be extended by the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission to industries using HV‑2 connections. The Court …
The petitioners, industrial units in the hill areas of Uttar Pradesh, claimed a 33.33% Hill Development Rebate on electricity charges granted under a 1996 notification issued pursuant to Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Subsequent notifications reduced the rebate to 17% and finally …
Kashi Vishwanath Steel Ltd. (KVSL) obtained an exemption from a 15% surcharge on electricity supplied from an independent feeder by writing to the Executive Engineer, relying on a circular dated 8 September 2000. After the bifurcation of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation, Uttarakhand Power Corporation …
The appellant, M/s Badri Kedar Paper Pvt Ltd, challenged the withdrawal of a circular issued by U.P. Power Corporation Ltd that affected the surcharge for a guaranteed 500‑hour power supply. The issue was whether the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (UPERC) alone has exclusive …
The Supreme Court examined whether Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd (UPPCL) could retrospectively impose a 15% surcharge after issuing circulars that allowed consumers to opt out of a guaranteed 500‑hour supply, and whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel barred such action. The Court held …
