Search Judgments

( Electricity Law - Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) - Compensation and Reimbursement for Power Diversion)

The Electricity Act, 2003 Section 125, by Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (GUVNL) against Essar Power Limited (EPL). The dispute stems from EPL's alleged diversion of electricity, initially allocated to GUVNL's predecessor (GEB) under a 1996 Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), to its sister company. Following a tortuous litigative journey, including a Supreme Court decision in 2016 that restored the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission's (GERC) 2009 order, the current appeals concerned GERC's subsequent 2019 order and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity's (APTEL) 2025 judgment.

The Supreme Court clarified its previous decision, emphasizing that GUVNL was entitled to two distinct financial entitlements: "compensation" for wrongful diversion, to be calculated using the HTP-1 Tariff Energy Charge (less variable costs); and "reimbursement" of proportionate annual fixed charges for electricity not supplied from its allocated share. GERC and APTEL in the preceding rounds had incorrectly treated these as a single claim for compensation.

(Legality of Search & Seizure under Legal Metrology Act)

Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (Sections 15, 36(1), 48, 50, 51); Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (Rule 24(a)); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Sections 100(4), 165); Constitution of India (Article 226) - ITC Ltd. challenged the seizure of exercise books by Legal Metrology officers for alleged violation of Rule 24(a) of the 2011 Rules, claiming the action was taken without a search warrant, proper 'reasons to believe', or adherence to Cr.P.C. safeguards.

The Single Judge quashed the notices as unlawful, but the Division Bench reversed this, contending Section 15 of the 2009 Act did not require a warrant.

(Eligibility for Direct Recruitment of District Judges under Article 233 of the Constitution)

Articles 233, 233-A, 234, 235, 236, 237, 14, 16, 50 of the Constitution of India and Advocates Act, 1961 (Rule 49 Bar Council of India Rules), addressed whether judicial officers are eligible for direct recruitment to the post of District Judge.

The Supreme Court re-examined the interpretation of Article 233(2), which had been understood to restrict direct recruitment solely to practicing advocates, thereby excluding in-service judicial officers. The Court found that previous judgments, including Satya Narain Singh and Dheeraj Mor, incorrectly applied the law, rendering the phrase "a person not already in the service of the Union or of the State" redundant and violating Articles 14 and 16.

Reaffirming Rameshwar Dayal and Chandra Mohan, the Court held that Article 233(1) governs all appointments (direct/promotion) while Article 233(2) only specifies eligibility for those not already in service.

(Issuance of No Caste, No Religion Certificate)

The petitioner challenged an order dated 09.07.2025, which rejected his request for a "No Caste, No Religion Certificate," despite his Hindu parentage. His counsel contended that he sought this certificate, but the third respondent denied the request due to the absence of a specific Government Order (GO).

The respondents' counsel affirmed that no GO exists for issuing such a certificate, thus justifying the rejection. The Court noted the petitioner's un-relinquished Hindu identity.

(Definition of 'Building' and Temporary Structures Under Planning Laws)

Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971: Section 2(7), Section 56(1) - The Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019: Rule 2(15) - This petition challenged a notice issued under Section 56(1) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, for unauthorized construction.

The petitioner contended that their tents, used for temporary accommodation in a tea plantation, were not 'buildings' per Rule 2(15) of The Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, thus invalidating the notice.

The Court examined Section 2(7) of the Act, which broadly defines 'building' to include tents and structures resting on the ground without foundations, and Rule 2(15) of the Rules.

While Rule 2(15) exempts tents erected for "temporary and ceremonial occasions," the Court clarified that this specific exemption does not apply to structures remaining permanently and used for commercial purposes.

(Compensation for Land Acquired in Layouts including Gifted Public Amenities)

This writ petition primarily concerns the determination of compensation under land acquisition proceedings. It revolves around the Land Acquisition Act (general principles) regarding compensation for lands acquired for public purposes.

The petitioner, a layout promoter, sought directions for the respondents to fix compensation for the entire 11.42 Acres of land in Nemili Village, including 1,06,431 sq. ft.

(Recovery of Excess Salary from Government Employee)

The petitioner challenged a Tribunal order upholding the recovery of Rs. 6,24,984/- in alleged excess payments, stemming from erroneous pay fixation. Initially Stenographer Grade-III (Group 'C') in 1992, her pay was re-fixed under the VI Central Pay Commission in 2012. A subsequent 2016 re-fixation led to a pay reduction, and recovery proceedings commenced in 2020.

(Utilisation of Temple Funds for Memorial Day Celebrations)

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Sections 10, 36, 36-B) - Utilisation of Surplus Funds Rules, 1960 (Rule 7, Rule 7(i)(a) - A Public Interest Litigation was filed to restrain respondents from using Hindu temple funds for celebrating former Chief Minister C.N. Annadurai's Memorial Day, specifically for annadanam and distribution of dhotis/sarees. The petitioner contended this was impermissible under Section 10 of the HR & CE Act, 1959, as temple funds must be for Hindu religious purposes, and Annadurai was an atheist critical of Hinduism.

The respondents countered that Annadurai was a distinguished leader promoting social justice, and temples also function as social institutions.

(Legality of Show Cause Notice under CGST Act)

The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) Section 76, read with Sections 25(4), 25(5), and 2(84) of the CGST Act, as well as the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - GAIL operates two distinct business verticals: natural gas sales (taxable under VAT) and natural gas transmission services (taxable under GST). For administrative clarity, GAIL obtained separate GST registrations in Tamil Nadu for its Trading and Transmission verticals. The Trading vertical collected a composite price from customers, which included a "reimbursement of GST cost on transmission charges." The Transmission vertical, in turn, raised invoices on the Trading vertical for this GST component and remitted the entire amount to the government.

The Revenue alleged a violation of Section 76, contending that the Trading vertical collected an amount representing tax but failed to remit it, viewing the two verticals as "distinct persons" under Section 25(4) of the CGST Act.

(Permanent Status of Workmen)

The Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (Sections 3, 3(1), Explanation II), the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Sections 12(3), 18(3)), and Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India - The appellants, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporations, challenged High Court orders granting retrospective permanent status to workmen. The workmen, initially daily wage employees, were regularized in 2005-2006 under a 12(3) settlement between the Management and Trade Unions. After several years, they sought permanent status from the date of completing 480 days of continuous service under the Permanent Status Act.

The Management contended that the 12(3) settlement was binding under Section 18(3) of the ID Act, and workmen, having accepted benefits for years, could not retrospectively claim permanent status under the State Act.