<?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>2018 (4) TMI 1945 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307142</link>
    <description>Section 84(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is an enabling provision and does not make appointment of a High Court Judge as Chairperson of the State Commission mandatory. Where the Commission exercises adjudicatory powers under Section 86(1)(f), its composition must include legal expertise, and an adjudicatory Bench must have at least one legally qualified member because such functions carry judicial trappings. The challenge to the Tamil Nadu State Commission&#039;s appointments on alleged bias and to its suo motu tariff proceedings was not made out on the facts stated and was rejected. The judgment was directed to operate prospectively.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Jun 2023 12:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=708265" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 1945 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307142</link>
      <description>Section 84(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is an enabling provision and does not make appointment of a High Court Judge as Chairperson of the State Commission mandatory. Where the Commission exercises adjudicatory powers under Section 86(1)(f), its composition must include legal expertise, and an adjudicatory Bench must have at least one legally qualified member because such functions carry judicial trappings. The challenge to the Tamil Nadu State Commission&#039;s appointments on alleged bias and to its suo motu tariff proceedings was not made out on the facts stated and was rejected. The judgment was directed to operate prospectively.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307142</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>