<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (5) TMI 389 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113419</link>
    <description>A consumer&#039;s agreed reduction of contracted load cannot be defeated by rigid insistence on security for arrears where the reduction was already decided under the supply code and the consumer was operating under revival-oriented statutory protection. The Court noted that clause 4.49 then permitted reduction of load when arrears were stayed, subject to security such as a bank guarantee, bond or other instrument acceptable to the licensee. Because the company was under relief- and sickness-related protective regimes and was complying with the payment arrangement directed by the rehabilitative forum, refusal to accept the bond and implement the agreed reduction was unjustified. The company was entitled to the reduction in load.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2018 14:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150425" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 389 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113419</link>
      <description>A consumer&#039;s agreed reduction of contracted load cannot be defeated by rigid insistence on security for arrears where the reduction was already decided under the supply code and the consumer was operating under revival-oriented statutory protection. The Court noted that clause 4.49 then permitted reduction of load when arrears were stayed, subject to security such as a bank guarantee, bond or other instrument acceptable to the licensee. Because the company was under relief- and sickness-related protective regimes and was complying with the payment arrangement directed by the rehabilitative forum, refusal to accept the bond and implement the agreed reduction was unjustified. The company was entitled to the reduction in load.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113419</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>