<?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>1975 (10) TMI 106 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176012</link>
    <description>A surcharge added to an existing electricity tariff was treated as a tariff revision because the statutory power to fix or revise tariff was wide enough to include such an enhancement, and the agreement itself allowed revision of tariff and supply conditions. The levy was therefore valid and not invalid merely because surcharge was not separately named in the Act. A broad arbitration clause covered disputes over the Board&#039;s authority to impose the surcharge and the contractual effect of the revision clause, so the parties were required to proceed to arbitration. The exemption of some consumers did not amount to impermissible discrimination, as those consumers were governed by special agreements and the statutory scheme did not show undue preference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:54:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=408404" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (10) TMI 106 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176012</link>
      <description>A surcharge added to an existing electricity tariff was treated as a tariff revision because the statutory power to fix or revise tariff was wide enough to include such an enhancement, and the agreement itself allowed revision of tariff and supply conditions. The levy was therefore valid and not invalid merely because surcharge was not separately named in the Act. A broad arbitration clause covered disputes over the Board&#039;s authority to impose the surcharge and the contractual effect of the revision clause, so the parties were required to proceed to arbitration. The exemption of some consumers did not amount to impermissible discrimination, as those consumers were governed by special agreements and the statutory scheme did not show undue preference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176012</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>