About Me

My photo
Lawyer Practising at Supreme Court of India. Court Experience: Criminal, Civil & PIL (related to Property, Tax, Custom & Duties, MVAC, insurance, I.P.R., Copyrights & Trademarks, Partnerships, Labour Disputes, etc.) Socio-Legal: Child Rights, Mid Day Meal Programme, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan, Women Rights, Against Female Foeticide, P.R.Is, Bonded Labour, Child labour, Child marriage, Domestic violence, Legal Literacy, HIV/AIDS, etc. Worked for Legal Aid/Advise/Awareness/Training/Empowerment/Interventions/Training & Sensitisation.

Contact Me

+91 9971049936, +91 9312079439
Email: adv.kamal.kr.pandey@gmail.com

Monday, June 30, 2008

SC asks Tatas not to take coercive action to recover dues

The Supreme Court today directed that Tata Power Limited shall not take any coercive action against Reliance Infrastructure Limited for the recovery of Rs 56 crore as energy charges.A vacation bench comprising Justices C K Thakker and Lokeshwar Singh Panta also issued notices to Tata Power, returnable within four weeks.Earlier, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Reliance contended before the court that for entire Maharashtra, except Borivili, Reliance has been paying Rs 1.77 per unit, while in the case of Borivili, the rate fixed by Tatas is Rs 2.09 per unit.Reliance was supposed to pay Rs 56 crore to Tatas by June 9.According to the petitioner, it was supposed to pay at the rate of Rs 3.5 crore per month to the respondent as standby energy charges and the remaining Rs 8 crore was to be paid in the form of difference of 32 paise per unit, which is paid for Borivili. The total annual payment of Rs 50 crore has to be paid by Reliance to Tatas.The counsel appearing for Tata Power himself made a statement in the court that it will not take any cercive step against Reliance for Rs 56 crore till the next date of hearing, which is in July.However, a similar petition has already been admitted by the apex court for hearing on merits. Reliance also wants this petition to be heard along with the earlier one.UNI
6/2/2008
http://www.indlawnews.com

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comment