<?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>2009 (12) TMI 517 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113577</link>
    <description>Existing consumers who execute a fresh agreement only for load reduction or alteration remain old registered consumers under the regulatory scheme, so the minimum guarantee period cannot be restarted from that later agreement. Regulation 17(ii) must be read with Regulation 17(vi): the former governs liability where supply is disconnected before the compulsory period, while the latter preserves the status of an existing consumer despite a fresh agreement for change of load or related alteration. On that construction, a post-disconnection demand for minimum guarantee charges treated the petitioner as a new consumer and was beyond the regulatory authority, so the demand and connected orders were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2014 13:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150583" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 517 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113577</link>
      <description>Existing consumers who execute a fresh agreement only for load reduction or alteration remain old registered consumers under the regulatory scheme, so the minimum guarantee period cannot be restarted from that later agreement. Regulation 17(ii) must be read with Regulation 17(vi): the former governs liability where supply is disconnected before the compulsory period, while the latter preserves the status of an existing consumer despite a fresh agreement for change of load or related alteration. On that construction, a post-disconnection demand for minimum guarantee charges treated the petitioner as a new consumer and was beyond the regulatory authority, so the demand and connected orders were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113577</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>