{"id":100079,"date":"2008-08-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-board-vs-ms-siel-ltd-ors-on-18-august-2008"},"modified":"2017-07-30T04:39:13","modified_gmt":"2017-07-29T23:09:13","slug":"punjab-state-electricity-board-vs-ms-siel-ltd-ors-on-18-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-board-vs-ms-siel-ltd-ors-on-18-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Punjab State Electricity Board vs M\/S. Siel Ltd. & Ors on 18 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Punjab State Electricity Board vs M\/S. Siel Ltd. & Ors on 18 August, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia<\/div>\n
                       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n          CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5380-5389 OF 2005\n\n\n\nPunjab State Electricity Board               ..Appellant\n\n\n                           Versus\n\n\nM\/s SIEL Ltd. and Ors.                       ..Respondents\n\n\n                          WITH\n\n\n(Civil Appeal Nos. 5394, 5395, 5392, 5397, 5390, 5391, 5393,\n                5396, 5379 and 5398 of 2005)\n\n\n\n\n                      JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.   Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of the<\/p>\n
Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
\nallowing the statutory appeals filed by the respondents         in<\/p>\n
these appeals questioning the order of the Punjab State<\/p>\n
Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short the `Commission’).<\/p>\n
The determination of tariff by the Commission was the subject<\/p>\n
matter of challenge.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.   The High Court held that the Commission had not<\/p>\n
addressed itself to the relevant parameters and, therefore, the<\/p>\n
order suffers from infirmities. The matter was remitted to the<\/p>\n
Commission to decide the issues afresh keeping in view the<\/p>\n
observations   made    and   after   eliciting   the   appropriate<\/p>\n
information from the appellant-Punjab State Electricity Board<\/p>\n
(in short the `Board’) wherever it has been found the deficient<\/p>\n
on the part of the Board. Stress in these appeals, essentially is<\/p>\n
focused on various conclusions on specific issues.<\/p>\n
3.   The dispute relates to the period from 1.8.2002 to<\/p>\n
31.7.2003. The annual cost requirement as per the Board was<\/p>\n
Rs.7,437.78 crores while the Commission allowed Rs.6,341.14<\/p>\n
crores. The challenge was essentially by industrial consumers<\/p>\n
                              2<\/span>
\nbefore the High Court. The dispute as noted above relate to (i)<\/p>\n
estimation of agricultural consumption and transmission and<\/p>\n
distribution loss (in short `T&D Loss’), (ii) energy input and<\/p>\n
coal     transportation,    (iii)        manpower    requirement,    (iv)<\/p>\n
investment and rate of return.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.     So far as the last head is concerned, the rate claimed is<\/p>\n
3% of net fixed assets and 14% of equity.<\/p>\n
5.     The basic premises on which the Commission proceeds<\/p>\n
is to find out whether existing tariff generates surplus revenue<\/p>\n
or not. If it is more, then there is scope for reduction in tariff<\/p>\n
and if it is less it leads to increase in tariff. One of the basic<\/p>\n
issues    relates   to   cross      subsidization.   In   other   words,<\/p>\n
industrial consumers pay more than actual average cost of<\/p>\n
supply and subsidize the consumers in the agricultural and<\/p>\n
domestic sectors.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.     According to learned counsel for the appellant-Board<\/p>\n
cross subsidization is a tariff design issue. The Government<\/p>\n
                                     3<\/span>
\nhas no role to play in cross subsidy. It is not an element of<\/p>\n
cost and essentially is redesigning of tariff. Hypothetically,<\/p>\n
High Court is not correct in saying it is a loss of revenue<\/p>\n
measure.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.   Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the<\/p>\n
High Court has rightly stressed on certain aspects like cross<\/p>\n
subsidy, inadequacy of materials produced, and rational and<\/p>\n
down to earth approach has been adopted. The Government<\/p>\n
has really no role to play. It is a legacy of the past and<\/p>\n
principally aims at progressively reducing the element of cross<\/p>\n
subsidy. The cost of supply is different to different classes of<\/p>\n
consumers. The average cost of supply can be categorized into<\/p>\n
(i) the average cost to every consumer and (ii) the average cost<\/p>\n
to a class of consumers. It is pointed out and in fact there is<\/p>\n
no dispute that cost of supply varies depending upon the<\/p>\n
consumption i.e. in case of lower voltage relatable to domestic<\/p>\n
consumers, the cost of supply is higher vis-`-vis the cost and<\/p>\n
at higher voltage by industrial consumers it is less. The<\/p>\n
technical and commercial losses are lower because of high<\/p>\n
                              4<\/span>
\nvoltage and it becomes higher if it is a case of low voltage. Till<\/p>\n
now, there appears to be no authoritative determination on a<\/p>\n
particular class of consumers. Thus, one of the methods can<\/p>\n
be by adoption of average cost principle. The basic issues<\/p>\n
which the High Court tried to address related to cross<\/p>\n
subsidy. But it introduced a concept of ideal situation which<\/p>\n
in our opinion is not the correct approach. Subsidy in essence<\/p>\n
is a privilege which can either be given or not to be given.<\/p>\n
8.    The Commission which has been appointed under the<\/p>\n
Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 (in short the<\/p>\n
`1998 Act’) or the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act,<\/p>\n
2003 (in short the `2003 Act’) exercises the statutory powers<\/p>\n
for determination of tariff. The guidelines and parameters have<\/p>\n
been provided under Section 9 of 1998 Act and Sections 29,<\/p>\n
61 and 82 of 2003 Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.    The Commission is primarily concerned with determining<\/p>\n
the   annual   revenue   requirement    (in   short   `ARR’).   The<\/p>\n
Commission designs the tariff and by rationalizing the same is<\/p>\n
                               5<\/span>
\nsent to the Government which takes a decision annually as to<\/p>\n
the quantum of subsidy and the class of beneficiaries.<\/p>\n
Thereafter, the Commission finalises the tariff.<\/p>\n
10.   One of the basic issues raised in these appeals was<\/p>\n
whether the interest on borrowing because of non receipt of<\/p>\n
subsidies can be taken as a part of ARR. The Commission is<\/p>\n
required to work out the details. It was stated that being the<\/p>\n
first year of fixation of tariff, the Commission was faced with<\/p>\n
various problems. If it is established that the borrowings are<\/p>\n
general in nature it certainly forms parts of the ARR, but<\/p>\n
where it is apparently made because of non receipt of subsidy<\/p>\n
amount from the Government, the question may arise whether<\/p>\n
it can be taken into account by fixing the ARR. If the Board by<\/p>\n
cogent material established that the interest is relatable to<\/p>\n
general borrowing, it would definitely form part of the ARR. If<\/p>\n
on the other hand the consumer is able to establish that the<\/p>\n
interest is relatable to borrowing on account of non receipt of<\/p>\n
subsidy, the details have to be worked out by the Commission.<\/p>\n
The commercial expediency test has to be applied by the<\/p>\n
                              6<\/span>
\nCommission. Difficulties arise when it relates to determination<\/p>\n
for the first year. At the beginning of the year the question of<\/p>\n
delay in receipt cannot be gone into. This is a matter for the<\/p>\n
subsequent period.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.   In relation to agricultural meter and T&D losses it is to<\/p>\n
be noted that in the past agricultural consumers were not<\/p>\n
having meters. Therefore, per force estimate had to be done.<\/p>\n
The Commission fixed 25.52% to be T& D losses. The High<\/p>\n
Court proceeded on the basis that meters should have been<\/p>\n
there. In the absence of meters, the consumers should not<\/p>\n
suffer. This is what is normally known as ideal situation test.<\/p>\n
Such test as indicated above has no place in the case of<\/p>\n
commercial evaluation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.   In the case of industrial and domestic consumers, the<\/p>\n
exact figures are known because meters are there. It is<\/p>\n
pointed out that the technical loss is fixed at 15% whereas at<\/p>\n
the distribution level it is 10 to 11% and 4 to 5% loss on<\/p>\n
account of transmission.\n<\/p>\n
                              7<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
13.   So far as the commercial losses and un-metered<\/p>\n
agricultural consumers are concerned, the same cannot be<\/p>\n
precisely quantified for the losses.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14.   It is to be noted that when the Board’s stand was that<\/p>\n
the loss is less than the national level load factor and the<\/p>\n
energy input is best in the country, the High Court again<\/p>\n
proceeded to apply the ideal situation test to say that there<\/p>\n
was scope for improvement and found no defect in the<\/p>\n
conclusions of the Commission by stating that the production<\/p>\n
should be optimum.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
15.   The   cross    subsidy   is       an    accepted   principle.      In<\/p>\n
Hindustan     Zinc   Ltd.   etc.etc.     v.    Andhra    Pradesh      State<\/p>\n
Electricity Board and Ors. (1991 (4) SCC 299) in para 33 it<\/p>\n
was observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            “33. Shri Kapil Sibal appearing on behalf of
\n            some of the appellants confined the challenge
\n            to the mode of exercise of power by the Board.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            He laid great emphasis on the effect of absence<\/p>\n
                                    8<\/span>
\n           of    consultation     with   the   Consultative
\n           Committee under Section 16 of the Electricity.
\n           (Supply) Act, 1948. He also claimed that the
\n           quantum of increase could at best be justified
\n           only to the extent of one-half and no more.
\n           Shri Sibal claimed that certain extraneous
\n           factors had been taken into account for the
\n           purpose of revising the tariffs. The irrelevant
\n           considerations, according to Shri Sibal, taken
\n           into account are the capital sums owed by the
\n           Board and the overall losses incurred by the
\n           Board which according to him is impermissible
\n           under Section 59 of the Electricity (Supply)
\n           Act. He also argued that the upward revision
\n           of HT tariffs is intended to subsidies another
\n           class of consumers which is not permissible.
\n           His arguments are already covered by our
\n           earlier discussion. Similarly, the arguments of
\n           Shri K.N. Bhat, for the appellant in C.A. No.
\n           5379 of 1985 to the same effect need no
\n           further discussion. The details of the several
\n           factors taken into account for the revision in
\n           tariffs, to the limited extent they can be gone
\n           into within the permissible scope of judicial
\n           review in such a manner also do not require
\n           any further consideration.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16.   The observations of this Court in West Bengal Electricity<\/p>\n
Regulatory Commission v. CESC Ltd. (2002 (8) SCC 715) need<\/p>\n
to be noted:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           “91. A perusal of Sections 29(2)(d), 29(3) and
\n           29(5) of the 1998 Act shows that the<\/p>\n
                              9<\/span>
\nconsumers should be charged only for the
\nelectricity consumed by them on the basis of
\naverage cost of supply of energy, and the tariff
\nshould     be    determined     by    the  State
\nCommission without showing any undue
\npreference to any consumer. The statute also
\nobligates the State Government to bear the
\nsubsidy which if it requires to be given to any
\nconsumer or any class of consumers, should
\nbe only on such conditions that the
\nCommission may fix and such burden should
\nbe borne by the Government. However, the
\nHigh Court in its judgment has directed the
\nCompany to maintain its tariff structure in
\nregard to different types of supplies as it was
\nprevailing before the Commission fixed the
\nnew tariff. It also directed the increase in the
\naverage rate of tariff which it had permitted to
\nbe distributed pro rata by the Company
\namongst different consumers, so that the
\npercentage of increase of each rate is the
\nsame. In effect, therefore, the High Court has
\ndirected the continuance of cross-subsidy.
\nOne of the reasons given by the High Court in
\nthis regard is that Calcutta Tramways which is
\notherwise running a cheap transportation
\nsystem might have to increase its fare and the
\nsame cannot be permitted since Calcutta
\nTramways were not heard in the matter of
\nfixation of tariff and there is, therefore, a
\nlikelihood of wide discontentment if the fares
\nare to be increased. We have noticed that the
\nobject of the 1998 Act is to prevent
\ndiscrimination in fixation of tariff by imposing
\ncross-subsidy, but at the same time under
\nSection 29(5) of the 1998 Act, if the State
\nGovernment so chooses to subsidise the
\nsupply of energy to any particular class of
\nconsumers, the same can be done provided of<\/p>\n
                   10<\/span>
\n             course the burden of loss suffered by the
\n             Company is borne by the State Government
\n             and not imposed on any other class of
\n             consumers. In this view of the matter, we are
\n             of the opinion that while the Commission was
\n             justified in its view as to the non-applicability
\n             of cross-subsidy, the High Court was in error
\n             in issuing a direction to the Commission,
\n             contrary to the object and provisions of the
\n             1998 Act to maintain a tariff structure which
\n             was prevailing prior to the Commission’s
\n             report. It is still open to the State Government
\n             if it so chooses to direct the Commission to fix
\n             the tariff of supply of electricity to any class of
\n             consumers at a reduced rate provided the
\n             State Government itself subsidises the same”.<\/p>\n
17.     In Association of Industrial Electricity Users v. State of<\/p>\n
A.P. and Ors.<\/a> (2002 (3) SCC 711) also the position was<\/p>\n
examined in detail.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
18.     We make it clear that actual expenditure has to be the<\/p>\n
basis and not the hypothetical ideal situation. Ideal situation<\/p>\n
is essentially contemplation of the future. Additionally, the<\/p>\n
computation of input is the actual cost on the basis of per<\/p>\n
unit.\n<\/p>\n
                                 11<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
19.   Since the High Court’s approach is not correct and<\/p>\n
analysis was not done in the correct prospective, we set aside<\/p>\n
the order of the High Court and remit the matter to the<\/p>\n
Commission to examine the matter afresh keeping in view the<\/p>\n
parameters of 2003 Act in the light of what has been stated<\/p>\n
above on specific issues.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
20.   The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.<\/p>\n
                                …………………………….J.
\n                                (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)<\/p>\n
                                …………………………….J.
\n                                (S.H. KAPADIA)
\nNew Delhi,
\nAugust 18, 2008<\/p>\n
                              12<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Punjab State Electricity Board vs M\/S. Siel Ltd. & Ors on 18 August, 2008 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5380-5389 OF 2005 Punjab State Electricity Board ..Appellant Versus M\/s SIEL Ltd. and Ors. ..Respondents WITH […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-100079","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPunjab State Electricity Board vs M\/S. Siel Ltd. & Ors on 18 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-board-vs-ms-siel-ltd-ors-on-18-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Punjab State Electricity Board vs M\/S. Siel Ltd. & Ors on 18 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-board-vs-ms-siel-ltd-ors-on-18-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-29T23:09:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-electricity-board-vs-ms-siel-ltd-ors-on-18-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-electricity-board-vs-ms-siel-ltd-ors-on-18-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Punjab State Electricity Board vs M\\\/S. Siel Ltd. & Ors on 18 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-29T23:09:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-electricity-board-vs-ms-siel-ltd-ors-on-18-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2017,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-electricity-board-vs-ms-siel-ltd-ors-on-18-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-electricity-board-vs-ms-siel-ltd-ors-on-18-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-electricity-board-vs-ms-siel-ltd-ors-on-18-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Punjab State Electricity Board vs M\\\/S. Siel Ltd. & Ors on 18 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-29T23:09:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-electricity-board-vs-ms-siel-ltd-ors-on-18-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-electricity-board-vs-ms-siel-ltd-ors-on-18-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-state-electricity-board-vs-ms-siel-ltd-ors-on-18-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Punjab State Electricity Board vs M\\\/S. Siel Ltd. & Ors on 18 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Punjab State Electricity Board vs M\/S. Siel Ltd. & Ors on 18 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-board-vs-ms-siel-ltd-ors-on-18-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Punjab State Electricity Board vs M\/S. Siel Ltd. & Ors on 18 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-board-vs-ms-siel-ltd-ors-on-18-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-29T23:09:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-board-vs-ms-siel-ltd-ors-on-18-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-board-vs-ms-siel-ltd-ors-on-18-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Punjab State Electricity Board vs M\/S. Siel Ltd. & Ors on 18 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-29T23:09:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-board-vs-ms-siel-ltd-ors-on-18-august-2008"},"wordCount":2017,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-board-vs-ms-siel-ltd-ors-on-18-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-board-vs-ms-siel-ltd-ors-on-18-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-board-vs-ms-siel-ltd-ors-on-18-august-2008","name":"Punjab State Electricity Board vs M\/S. Siel Ltd. & Ors on 18 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-29T23:09:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-board-vs-ms-siel-ltd-ors-on-18-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-board-vs-ms-siel-ltd-ors-on-18-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-state-electricity-board-vs-ms-siel-ltd-ors-on-18-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Punjab State Electricity Board vs M\/S. Siel Ltd. & Ors on 18 August, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100079","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=100079"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100079\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=100079"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=100079"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=100079"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}