Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: September 1, 2025 To September 7, 2025

Reports/JudgmentsS. 86 Electricity Act | Power Generators, Discoms Cannot Fix Tariffs Privately, Need Regulatory Commissions' Approval: Supreme CourtCase Details: M/S. KKK Hydro Power Limited v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Sc) 856The Supreme Court held that a generating company and a distribution licensee cannot unilaterally fix tariffs through a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), ruling that tariff determination requires the prior approval of the Electricity Regulatory CommissionCiting Section 86 of the Electricity Act of 2003, the court observed:“...fixing of the price for the purchase of electricity is not a matter of private negotiation and agreement between a generating company and a distribution licensee. The price as well as the agreement, i.e., PPA, incorporating such price and providing for purchase of electricity at that price necessarily have to be reviewed and approved by the State Commission under this provision.”“We, however, clarify and affirm that a generating company and a distribution licensee cannot, by private agreement, execute a PPA on their own or stipulate tariff therein as per their choice, for supply of electricity within a State, without seeking the review and approval of the Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 86(1) (b) of the Act of 2003.”, the court added.The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and NV Anjaria dismissed the appeal filed by a power-generating company, which sought a higher tariff for its hydroelectric power supplied to the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (HPSEB) based on the unilateral revision in the tariff rates in the PPA without the approval of the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (“HPERC”).Past Misconduct Can Add Weight To Dismissal, Even If Not Mentioned In Show Cause Notice : Supreme CourtCase Details: State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ex. C. Satpal SinghCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Sc) 857The Supreme Court set aside the reinstatement of the ex-Punjab Armed Forces Constable for his repeated unauthorized absence from the service, stating that past records of indiscipline though not specifically referred to in the show cause notice, cannot save the delinquent officer from dismissal as the same can be used to adding the weight to the decision of imposing the punishment.A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order directing the reinstatement of a constable, holding that the High Court erred in treating the disciplinary authority's reliance on his past conduct, though not mentioned in the show cause notice, as a violation of natural justice.Ensure Every Unauthorised Construction In Kolkata Is Dealt With As Per Law : Supreme Court To Calcutta High CourtCase Details: M/S. T.S Construction v. Howrah Zilla Parishad, SLP(C) No. 23989/2025Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Sc) 858The Supreme Court asked the Calcutta High Court to take up the issue of unauthorized constructions in the city and deal with each of them appropriately in the interest of the general public."It is high time that the High Court in larger public interest takes up this issue and ensures that each and every unauthorized construction across the city of Calcutta is dealt with appropriately in accordance with law" observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan.The case pertained to some construction carried out by the petitioner, deviating from the sanction plan, in relation to which the Howrah Zilla Parishad had passed a resolution directing that it be removed. This Resolution noted that the petitioner was aware of government norms and the deviations were made "knowingly and deliberately".Supreme Court Upholds Telangana Domicile Rule Mandating 4 Year Continuous Study In State With Relaxation To Children Of Govt ServantsCase Details: State of Telangana and Ors. v. Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram and Ors. SLP(C) No. 21536-21588/2024Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Sc) 859The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Telangana against the order of the Telangana High Court, which held that a permanent resident need not be required to study or reside in Telangana for 4 continuous years to get the benefit of domicile quota in medical admissions.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran upheld the 2017 Rules, which mandated that a candidate must study for four consecutive years in the State of Telangana to qualify for the "local candidate" quota in MBBS and BDS courses.To address the difficulties faced by children of parents who work in All India Services or PSUs, who get transferred outside the State, the State Government suggested an amendment, which the Court accepted. With this amendment, the Court upheld the 2017 Rules as amended in 2024.Customs Act | Electronic Evidence Admissible Without S.138C(4) Certificate If Assessee's S.108 Statement Admits Contents : Supreme CourtCase Details: Additional Director General...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: September 1, 2025 To September 7, 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags