Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

OSWAL WOOLEN MILLS LTD versus PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR.

Decided
11 January 2008
Judges listed
S.B. SINHA, H.S. BEDI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 637 · 2008 INSC 46

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

This application has been filed for clarification of a judgment and order dated 28.04.2006 passed by a Division · Bench of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2335 of 2006.

p. 637, margin F

2

The clarification has been sought for on the issue as to whether 13.05.1992 was the cut-off date for commencement of A the period of one year for converting supply from 11 KV to 33 KV or higher voltage or the surcharge was actually payable with effect from the said date.

pp. 637–638, margin F

3

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the Company is liable to pay the surcharge with effect from the date of expiry of one year from 13. 05.1992 and ·not from 13.05.1992 itself. The relevant paragraph of the judgment of this Court, accordingly, may be substituted by the following: 'For the reasons aforementioned, although Mr. R.K. Jain, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the company, may be right in his submission that the Board has no jurisdiction to levy surcharge after 29.01.1992, but as the said contention had not been raised and furthermore as notice was issued by the court on a limited question, we are of the opinion that the company is liable to pay the surcharge with effect from the date of expiry of one year from 13.05.1992. We may furthermore notice that the actual amount of surcharge payable from that date has already been paid by the company to the Board. However, in view of our findings aforementioned, there cannot be any doubt that the surcharge @ 17 %% was not required to be paid in terms of the tariff notification dated 01.02.1994.' The I.A. is disposed of accordingly. R.P. Interlocutory Application disposed of.

p. 638