You are on page 1of 5

Section 9

1. State Of West Bengal vs Brindaban Chandra Pramanik And


... on 24 July, 1956
Facts
To the respondents' claim for compensation (Rs. 7,253/10/-) for one
thousand maunds and twenty seers of paddy, requisitioned in 1944 by
the then Province of Bengal under Rule 75A of the Defence of India
Rules, three technical defences were raised by the Province of West
Bengal which, was made the sole defendant in the suit, brought in
December, 1948. The merits of these defences have to be considered
in the present appeal.
Issue
On or about 16-6-1944, the statutory notice of requisition was served
on the respondents and, between 25th June and 2nd July following,
the requisitioned paddy, one thousand maunds and twenty seers, was
duly delivered by them to the Civil Supply Department of the then
Province of Bengal.
Held
Lahiri J. has now given his opinion on the substantive point of
difference, namely, whether Article 9 or Article 10 would apply to
this case and he has, in effect, expresed the view that the present case
would come under Article 10 (2) (b) of the Indian Independence
(Rights, Property and Liabilities) Order, 1947. In accordance,
therefore, with the opinion of the majority, as required by Section 98,
Civil P. C. and CL 36, Letters Patent, the appeal will now be
dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly.
2. Communidade Of Cacoda vs Vishnu Bhikaro Sawant And
Anr. on 22 November, 2007
Facts
The appellant-plaintiff had instituted the suit for mandatory and
permanent injunction being owners of the property surveyed under
No. 145/21 and 145/2 of Village Kakoda. It was the case of the
plaintiffs who are appellants herein that on or about 24.10.1989, the
defendant/respondents herein criminally trespassed into the property
surveyed under No. 145/21 (which is the suit property) and dumped
construction material therein and started making illegal construction,
thereby encroaching upon an area of about 150 sq. metres of the suit
property. The appellants contended that the respondents have no right,
title or interest of any nature in the suit property and were rank
trespassers.
Issue
Issue No. 1 was regarding whether the respondent committed trespass
in the property of the defendant. Issue No. 2 was whether the
appellants established that the respondents are rank trespassers and
they have no right whatsoever in the suit property. Issue No. 3 was
whether the respondents prove that they have a structure in the suit
property well over 20 years.
Held
In so far as finding of facts are concerned, the finding recorded by the
trial Court is that the respondents trespassed into the property of the
appellant herein. This finding of fact was not argued in the appeal
filed. The judgment of the first Appellate Court indicates that various
grounds were raised and the only question on which the appeal was
argued was maintainability of the suit based on Article 9 of the Code
of Communidades In the light of the above, the judgment of the first
appellate Court dated 6.5.98 is set aside and the judgment of the trial
Court dated 30.3.95 is restored. The appeal is allowed accordingly. In
the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

Section 10
1 Maharashtra Power Development ... vs Dabhol Power
Company And Ors. on 2 April, 2003
Fact
The first respondent, Dabhol Power Company (the company) was
promoted by Enron Development Corporation, USA (Enron) General
Electric Company, USA (GE) and Bechtel Enterprises, Inc (Bechtel)
and was registered as a private company with unlimited liability in
April 1993, with the object of developing a 2000 MW capacity power
plant in Maharashtra State, to be implemented in two phases. The
authorized capital of the company in Rs. 3,862.65 crores.
Issue
That they are in violation of the Articles, oppressive and against
public interest, the petitioner filed the instant petition under Section
397 of the Companies Act.
Held
In so far as the nomination of respondents 6-9 by EMC as directors is
concerned, this Board has no jurisdiction to enquire as to whether the
Board of EMC had the power to function, more so, in view of the
order of the Supreme Court of Mauritius permitting that Board to
function. EMC has the right to appoint substitutes in place of its
earlier nominees who had resigned. However, since the nominations
of respondents 6-9 have not been considered by the Board of
Directors and have not been appointed as directors, they cannot claim
themselves to be or act as directors. It is for the Board of Directors
now constituted, to take a decision on these nominations. Petition is
disposed of in the above terms with no order to cost. Pronounced in
the open court today 2nd April 2003.

2 M/S Wardha Power Company Limited vs Reliance


Infrastructure Limited ... on 12 September, 2014

Facts

The present Appeal has been preferred by M/s Wardha Power


Company Limited (in short the 'Appellant-Petitioner'), against the
impugned order, dated 13.08.2013, passed by the Maharashtra
Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short, the 'State Commission')
in Case No. 39/2012, in Wardha Power Company Limited vs.
Reliance Infrastructure Limited, on the Petition of the Appellant-
Petitioner, filed under Section 86(1)(b) and 86(1)(f) of the Electricity
Act, 2003 (in short, 'The Act'), in the matter of dispute between a
Generating Company and the Distribution Licensee as a result of
deliberate and willful failure of the distribution licensee to make
payments

Issue

That the compensation shall be calculated with the same base as


used for the bid and will be effective from the date of
Government Circular/Ordinance.

That on the issue of extra VAT on secondary fuel, the State


Commission has noted that VAT rate has undergone revision
from 4% to 5%, and this 1% increase is acceptable

Held
The PPA clearly defines the fuel as primary fuel used to generate
electricity namely domestic coal. The source of coal has been
indicated as Coal India Ltd. through coal linkage. The bidding
documents submitted by the Appellant also indicate that the Appellant
had not envisaged use of imported coal for power generation. The
decision to import coal has been taken by the Appellant on its own
volition with a view to increase the efficiency of the power plant, as
held by the State Commission. Therefore, we are not inclined to
interfere with the findings of the State Commission disallowing the
claim of the Appellant for customs duty on imported coal as a
consequence of Change in Law. In view of above, the Appeal is partly
allowed as indicated above. No order as to costs. PRONOUNCED IN
THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014.