Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Friday, 31 July 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2024-11-04 allowed

THE MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY LIMITED & ORS vs BAPUNA ALCOBREW PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR

Bench: 2 — Dipankar Datta, Pankaj Mithal

In Brief

An electricity distribution utility demanded unpaid minimum guarantee charges for 1996–2000 from an industrial consumer nine years later. The consumer had run a captive power generator, allegedly in breach of supply conditions, leading to a cancellation notice. The consumer challenged this in court, and the High Court's interim orders made deposit of disputed charges a condition for staying the cancellation. Years later, when the utility issued a fresh demand notice, the consumer sought to quash it, arguing the two-year limitation under the 2003 Electricity Act applied. The Supreme Court held that the limitation period applies only to liabilities accrued under the 2003 Act, not earlier ones. More importantly, the Court found that the consumer had not appealed earlier court orders deciding liability in the utility's favour, so issue estoppel barred re-litigation. The demand was upheld, and the appeal was allowed.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Electricity Law Civil Procedure Limitation Act Issue Estoppel Res Judicata Statutory Liability Contract Law Regulatory Law

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login