<?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>2008 (3) TMI 654 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165140</link>
    <description>A special dispute-resolution mechanism under the Electricity Act, 2003 was treated as overriding the general appointment power under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where disputes arise between a licensee and a generating company. The State Commission was held to have exclusive authority to decide whether the matter should be adjudicated by itself or referred to an arbitrator nominated by it, and prior contractual arrangements could not displace that statutory scheme. The Act was harmonised by giving overriding effect to the Electricity Act where conflict existed, while Article 14 challenge to the discretion vested in the State Commission was rejected as not arbitrary.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2025 17:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=355440" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 654 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165140</link>
      <description>A special dispute-resolution mechanism under the Electricity Act, 2003 was treated as overriding the general appointment power under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where disputes arise between a licensee and a generating company. The State Commission was held to have exclusive authority to decide whether the matter should be adjudicated by itself or referred to an arbitrator nominated by it, and prior contractual arrangements could not displace that statutory scheme. The Act was harmonised by giving overriding effect to the Electricity Act where conflict existed, while Article 14 challenge to the discretion vested in the State Commission was rejected as not arbitrary.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165140</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>