TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Handling Review Petitions Under CPC: Original Judges Preferred, Quorum Rules</h1> <h3>Himachal Sorang Power Private Limited Versus Powergrid Corporation of India Limited</h3> Himachal Sorang Power Private Limited Versus Powergrid Corporation of India Limited - TMI Issues Involved:1. Quorum for hearing review petitions.2. Applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) principles to the Commission's proceedings.3. Doctrine of necessity in the context of unavailable judges.4. Interpretation of relevant statutory provisions and regulations.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Quorum for Hearing Review Petitions:The central issue was whether a review petition could be heard by a bench with fewer members than the original bench that passed the order. The Commission highlighted that the quorum for proceedings is generally two members, but the specific quorum for review petitions was not explicitly mentioned in the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1999 (CBR).2. Applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) Principles:The Commission examined the applicability of Order 47 Rule 5 of the CPC, which mandates that review petitions should be heard by the same judges who passed the original order. The Commission noted that while the CPC is not stricto sensu applicable, it can serve as a guiding principle. The Commission referred to judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court and Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, to support this view.3. Doctrine of Necessity:The Commission acknowledged situations where the original judges might be unavailable due to reasons like death, retirement, or other unforeseeable circumstances. The doctrine of necessity allows for a different judge to hear the review petition in such cases. This principle was supported by the Privy Council's decision in Maharaja Moheshur Sing vs. Bengal Government and the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Odisha & Others vs. Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Cuttack & Ors.4. Interpretation of Relevant Statutory Provisions and Regulations:The Commission analyzed various statutory provisions, including Sections 76 and 92 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and relevant provisions of the CBR. It concluded that while the CBR specifies the general quorum, it does not explicitly address the quorum for review petitions. The Commission also referred to Section 94 of the Electricity Act, which grants it powers similar to those of a civil court under the CPC, including the power to review its decisions.Analysis and Decision:The Commission decided the issue of quorum for hearing review petitions based on the following principles:1. Guidance by CPC Principles: The Commission should be guided by the principles of Section 114 of CPC and Order 47 while dealing with review petitions.2. Same Judges for Review: If the members who heard and passed the original order are available, they alone should hear the review petition.3. Doctrine of Necessity: If the original members are unavailable due to death, superannuation, or absence for six months, the Chairperson should constitute a quorum of equal number of members, including the available members who passed the original order.4. Vacancy in Commission: If it is impossible to constitute a quorum equal to the original quorum due to vacancies, the Chairperson should form a quorum with fewer members (minimum of two), including the available members who passed the original order.The review petitions were directed to be listed before appropriate quorums based on these principles.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
