Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Retroactive SC
Retroactive SC
IN
1
REPORTABLE
VERSUS
WITH
VERSUS
WITH
VERSUS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
M/S. TRUSSES AND TOWERS (P) LTD.
Date: 2019.01.24
10:03:47 IST
...RESPONDENT(S)
Reason:
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
2
WITH
VERSUS
J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.
C.A.Nos.84428443 of 2016
(M/s. Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs. Assam State
Electricity Board & Ors.)
law:
the Act, the appeal filed by the Board was thus allowed
appellants.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
8
Board. The High Court held that all the bills raised by
payment.
effect from 23.04.1993 and the whole sum was paid upto
79 and 80:
retrospective operation.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
19
maintainable.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
21
High Court.
payment.
23.09.1992.
35. Section 4 which deals with date from which and rate
Section 3.
38:
42. The Court further held that there was neither any
paragraphs 4546:
applicable.
Bench.
Issue NO.1
Act.
Issue No.2
following words:
down:
was promulgated.
retroactive.
Issue No.3
“Issue No.2:
time.
67. The Trial court has held that suit is not barred by
due.
Association.
barred by time.
Issue No.4
issue.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
66
Issue No. 5
Issue No.6
not returned any finding that all the bills were not
permitted.
Issue No.7
already held that the mere fact that supply orders were
......................J.
(A. K. SIKRI)
......................J.
(ASHOK BHUSHAN)
......................J.
(S.ABDUL NAZEER)
NEW DELHI,
JANUARY 23, 2019