<?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>1996 (4) TMI 540 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460695</link>
    <description>Where tampering, pilferage or theft of electricity is detected, the Board may disconnect supply forthwith under the applicable tariff and supply conditions framed under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which requires seven days&#039; notice for disconnection for non-payment of ordinary dues, does not apply to detected pilferage. An inspection recorded in the presence of the consumer&#039;s representative, together with tampered meters, was sufficient to support a prima facie finding of pilferage, and no further hearing was required before disconnection or assessment. The resulting demand and disconnection were held not illegal and not contrary to Articles 14 or 20(1) or natural justice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 18:15:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=796896" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (4) TMI 540 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460695</link>
      <description>Where tampering, pilferage or theft of electricity is detected, the Board may disconnect supply forthwith under the applicable tariff and supply conditions framed under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which requires seven days&#039; notice for disconnection for non-payment of ordinary dues, does not apply to detected pilferage. An inspection recorded in the presence of the consumer&#039;s representative, together with tampered meters, was sufficient to support a prima facie finding of pilferage, and no further hearing was required before disconnection or assessment. The resulting demand and disconnection were held not illegal and not contrary to Articles 14 or 20(1) or natural justice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460695</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>