LexM/S KOTHARI INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD. versus TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 11 S.C.R. 1139 M/S KOTHARI INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD. A v. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 9748 of 2003 etc.) OCTOBER 01, 2010 [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND T. S. THAKUR, JJ.] F?eference to Larger Bench - Tariff-concession provided to new industries under Electrical Energy Act - Establishment B of industrial units - Subsequently by Notification new C condition for tariff-concession provided ~ Industrial units also giving undertaking to that effect - Held: In view of difference of opinion in various judgments passed by Supreme Court, the matter referred to Larger Bench to decide the issues whether principles of 'legitimate expectation' and 'promissory D estoppe/' are applicable to the case and whether undertaking given by the industrial units acted as estoppel against them - Tamil Nadu Revision of Tariff Rates on Supply of Electrical Energy Act, 1978 - Administrative Law - Principles of 'legitimate expectation' and 'promissory estoppel' - Estoppel E - Electricity. Tariff concessions were given for a period of first five years to new industries under Tamil Nadu Revision of Tariff Rates on Supply of Electrical Energy Act, 1978. The appellants, attracted by the concessions, established F their industrial units. Subsequently, by a Notification dated 30.04.1982, the respondents revised the tariff concession, whereby the concession was not to apply from the year when the industry started earning profit. Appellants were asked to give an undertaking to that effect which they gave fearing disconnection of their power supply. Appellant in C. A. No. 9748 of 2003 was served notice to pay a particular amount towards tariff. 1139 G H A B 1140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R. The questions for consideration in the instant appeals were whether the principles of 'promissory estoppel' and 'legitimate expectation' were applicable and whether the undertaking given by the appellants acted as an estoppel against them. Referring the matters to the Larger Bench, the Court HELD: There are some differences of opinion in the various decisions by different benches of the Supreme Court. Hence the matter needs to be decided by a Larger C Bench of this Court, on the issue as to whether the principles of 'promissory estoppel' and 'legitimate expectation' are applicable in this case. The Larger Bench may also consider whether the undertaking given by the appellants acts as an estoppel against them. D (1143-E-F] Pawan Alloys and Casting (P) Ltd. vs. UP. State Electricity Board and Ors. (1997) 7 SCC 251; Southern Petrochemical Industries Company Limited vs. Electricity Inspector and E. T.1.0. and Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 447; Shri Baku/ E Oil Industries and Anr. vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. (1987) 1 SCC 31 etc.; Union of India and Ors. vs. Godfrey Philips India Limited (1985) 4 SCC 369, State of Tamil Nadu vs. K. Sabanayagam and Anr. (1998) 1 SCC 318; Jalan Trading Co. (Pvt. Ltd.) vs. Mill Mazdoor Union 1967(1) SCR 15; Kasinka F Trading and Anr. vs. Union of India and Anr. (1995) 1 SCC 274; .(1997) 3 SCC 398; Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs. Status Spinning Mills Ltd. and Anr. (2008) 7 SCC 353 - referred to. G Case Law Reference: (1997) 1 sec 251 Referred to. Para 5 (2007) 5 sec 447 Referred to. Para 5 (1987) 1 sec 31 Referred to. Para 5 H KOTHARI INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD. v. TAMIL1141 NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. (1985) 4 sec 369 Referred to. Para 6 (1998) 1 sec 318 Referred to. Para 6 1967(1) SCR 15 Referred to. Para 6 (1995) 1 sec 214 Referred to. Para 6 (1997) 3 sec 398 Referred to. Para 6 (2008) 1 sec 353 Referred to. Para 6 A B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. c 9748 of 2003. From the Judgment & Order dated 06.12.2001 of the High Court of Madras in WA No. 421 of 1995. With Civil Appeal No. 9749 and 9750 of 2003. D P.H. Parekh, Nalini Chidambaram, E.R. Kumar, Debojyoti Battacharya, Vishal Prasad, Anand Jha (for Parekh & Co.) Nikhil Swani, Prabha Swami, A.M.P. Latha, Krishnamurthi E Swani, D. Durga Devi (for Vikas Mehta), R. Nedumaran and Vimal Dubey for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. 1. These appeals have been F filed against the common judgment and order of the Madras High Court dated 06.12.2001 in Writ Appeals Nos. 421 & 488 \ of 1985 etc. The facts have been stated out in great detail in · the impugned judgment of the High Cou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.