From power tariff to restoring water bodies, here are the key court orders

The Supreme Court has also asserted that the Fundamental Duties enshrined in the Constitution apply to the state, as well as the citizens

Court not to interfere in power tariff

Once an expert body has determined specific tariffs for power, it is not for the court to interfere ordinarily in such matters. The Supreme Court declared so while allowing the appeal of Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh against the judgments of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and the high court. Two main questions arose in the appeal of the corporation -- the levy of wheeling charges by it and its competence to levy grid support charges. Several industrial consumers, led by Rain Calcinaning, had challenged the change in the tariff and withdrawal of certain benefits given to them before the tribunal. It held that the electricity policy had created vested rights in favour of entrepreneurs, and these vested rights could not have been taken away. The state electricity regulatory commission reversed the finding and the high court ruled against the commission. Therefore, the Transmission Corporation moved the Supreme Court. Allowing the appeals, the court held that the Commission constituted under the AP Electricity Reforms Act, 1998, has the power to determine the charges. It has power under the regulations to prescribe the tariff and charges concerning the transmission and bulk supply, or distribution and retail supply.

NCLT’s limited power in charge of fraud

The Supreme Court ruled last week that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and its appellate body have jurisdiction to enquire into allegations of fraud in the proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. However, they would not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputes such as those arising under the Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. Stating so, the court dismissed three appeals filed against the order of the Karnataka High Court. The first appeal was moved by the resolution applicant, the second by the corporate debtor through the resolution professional, and the third by the committee of creditors. All of them had challenged the interim order passed by the high court staying the operation of a direction issued by the NCLT on an application filed by the resolution professional. The judgment involving complex interpretation of jurisdiction of the tribunals was passed in the appeals, Embassy Property Developments vs State of Karnataka. The disputes were triggered when the state government refused to extend mining leases of the corporate debtor on the ground that it had contravened not only the terms and conditions of the lease deed but also the provisions of the Mineral Concession Rules.

Civic authorities told to restore water bodies

The Supreme Court has asserted that the Fundamental Duties enshrined in the Constitution apply to the state, as well as the citizens. The state has a duty to protect the environment. Therefore, it asked the Greater Noida authorities to restore the water bodies filled for the benefit of a company in the appeal case, Jitendra Singh vs Ministry of Environment. The National Green Tribunal had dismissed the petition of the activist lawyer alleging that traditional water bodies used by villagers in the area were being filled up for the benefit of industries, flouting land acquisition laws and environmental statutes. The tribunal dismissed his petition stating that alternative ponds are being constructed. Setting aside the NGT order, the court explained that “many animals and marine organisms present in the earlier site would perish, and wouldn’t resuscitate by merely filling a hole with water elsewhere”. It ordered the local authorities to “restore, maintain and protect the water bodies in the village.” They shall also remove all obstructions from the catchment area through which natural water accumulates in the village ponds, all within three months.

UCO Bank flouts rules for repossession

TThe Patna High Court last week indicted UCO Bank for flouting the law and selling the vehicles of a borrower who defaulted on repayment. In this judgment, Sujay Kumar vs UCO, the bank argued that it has an option not to follow the procedures laid down by the Securitisation (Sarfaesi) Act. Rejecting it, the court stated such an argument would frustrate the very purpose of the law. The borrower was not given notice in time before the auction. Though the bank may have a right to repossess assets, the procedure must be followed. “The bank has acted in hot haste, unreasonably and arbitrarily by totally ignoring the provisions of the Act,” the court said.