https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194224 Applying the doctrine of pith and substance, the Supreme Court treated the State enactment as a law for acquisition of an undertaking in public interest with compensation, not as a law regulating electricity supply under the Central enactments. The purchase and revocation provisions in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 were inapplicable because the operators were not licensees, and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 provisions applicable to generating companies did not convert them into licensees or displace the State scheme. As the State and Central laws operated in different fields and no direct conflict was shown, repugnancy under Article 254 was not established and Presidential assent was unnecessary. en-us Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Jun 2024 14:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194224 Applying the doctrine of pith and substance, the Supreme Court treated the State enactment as a law for acquisition of an undertaking in public interest with compensation, not as a law regulating electricity supply under the Central enactments. The purchase and revocation provisions in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 were inapplicable because the operators were not licensees, and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 provisions applicable to generating companies did not convert them into licensees or displace the State scheme. As the State and Central laws operated in different fields and no direct conflict was shown, repugnancy under Article 254 was not established and Presidential assent was unnecessary. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194224