AEON CREATIONS PVT. LTD. AND ANR v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, INDUSTRIES, ENERGY AND LABOUR DEPT. AND ORS
Discusses statutory interpretation, effect of repealed regulations, and principles related to auction sales and liabilities.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:22552-DB
Decision Date: 06-06-2025
List of Laws
Constitution of India, 1949; Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act); Electricity Act, 2003; Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Other Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 2005; Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Standards of Performance of Distribution Licensees including Power Quality) Regulations, 2021; Transfer of Property Act, 1882; General Clauses Act, 1897
- Constitution of India, 1949: The judgment refers to Article 226 of the Constitution of India, under which the writ petition was filed. The petitioner sought writs of certiorari and mandamus under this article, challenging the communication dated 6 December 2024 and seeking directions for MSEDCL to process their application under the Amnesty Scheme. The court discusses the scope of Article 226 in the context of challenging subordinate legislation and enforcing contractual or statutory rights. The judgment also refers to the denial of electricity supply resulting in the institution of petitions under Article 226 before the High Courts, leading to the judgments which were subject matter of appeal before the Supreme Court.
- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act): The judgment mentions the SARFAESI Act in the context of the petitioner purchasing the property in an auction sale conducted under its provisions. The petitioner argued that as an auction purchaser under the SARFAESI Act, they should not be liable for the previous owner's electricity dues. The court discusses the implications of purchasing property on an "as is where is" basis under the SARFAESI Act and its effect on the liability for outstanding dues.
- Electricity Act, 2003: The judgment refers to Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, regarding the duty to supply electricity. The Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 43, holding that the duty to supply electricity is not absolute and is subject to charges and compliances stipulated by distribution licensees, is discussed. Section 50 of the Act is also mentioned, noting the wide scope of regulatory powers of the State Commission to stipulate conditions for recovery of electricity arrears. Section 56(2) of the Act is discussed in relation to the period of limitation for recovery of electricity dues. Section 185(2)(a) of the Act is mentioned in relation to the effect of repeals. Section 181 read with Section 50 of the 2003 Act is mentioned as providing wide enough rule making power to enable the regulatory commission to provide for a statutory charge in the absence of a provision in the plenary statute providing for creation of such a charge.
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Other Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 2005: The judgment extensively discusses the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Other Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 2005, particularly Regulation 10.5. Regulation 10.5 stipulates that unpaid electricity charges of a previous owner constitute a charge on the premises transmitted to successors-in-law or new owners, subject to a six-month limitation (except for legal heirs). The court analyzes the applicability of Regulation 10.5 to auction purchasers and its interaction with the "as is where is" principle. The judgment also notes that the 2005 Regulations have been repealed and replaced by the 2021 Regulations.
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Standards of Performance of Distribution Licensees including Power Quality) Regulations, 2021: The judgment notes that the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Standards of Performance of Distribution Licensees including Power Quality) Regulations, 2021, repealed the 2005 Regulations. Clause 12.5 of the 2021 Regulations, which replaced Regulation 10.5 of the 2005 Regulations, is discussed. The court holds that the proviso in Regulation 10.5 of the 2005 Regulations, which limited the liability of new owners to six months of unpaid charges, is no longer applicable under the 2021 Regulations.
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882: The judgment refers to Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which contemplates two types of charges, namely, charges created by act of parties and charges arising by operation of law. The Supreme Court's analysis of Section 100 in K.C. Ninan's case is discussed. The judgment also refers to Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, in terms of the legal doctrine of caveat emptor. Section 55(1)(a) is also mentioned, stating that in the absence of a contract to the contrary, the seller is under an obligation to disclose material defects in the property or in the seller's title thereto of which he is aware and which a buyer could not with ordinary care discover for himself.
- General Clauses Act, 1897: The judgment refers to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, in the context of the repeal of the 2005 Regulations and its effect on pending proceedings. The court discusses whether Section 6 saves any rights that accrued under the repealed regulations. The Supreme Court's observations on the applicability of Section 6 in cases of repeal and substitution of statutes are also noted. Section 185(2)(5) of the Electricity Act 2003 further provides that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 would be applicable in relation to matters prescribed in Section 185(2) with regard to the effect of repeals.
🔒 For Members Only