<?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>1983 (9) TMI 333 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307575</link>
    <description>A statutory electricity board may revise security deposit conditions for supply of electricity when the enabling statute and contract reserve that power, and the exercise is not arbitrary or unreasonable. Here, the board&#039;s authority to enhance the cash security for energy bills was upheld because the consumers had accepted the original condition and the supply contract allowed amendment of terms. The enhancement of meter security was also accepted in principle, though the basis for revision was to be moderated and a revised formula evolved, with interest on deposits to be increased. The challenge to the board&#039;s revised security demands therefore failed in substance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Apr 2023 11:20:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=711517" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (9) TMI 333 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307575</link>
      <description>A statutory electricity board may revise security deposit conditions for supply of electricity when the enabling statute and contract reserve that power, and the exercise is not arbitrary or unreasonable. Here, the board&#039;s authority to enhance the cash security for energy bills was upheld because the consumers had accepted the original condition and the supply contract allowed amendment of terms. The enhancement of meter security was also accepted in principle, though the basis for revision was to be moderated and a revised formula evolved, with interest on deposits to be increased. The challenge to the board&#039;s revised security demands therefore failed in substance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307575</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>