{"id":121474,"date":"2011-09-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhawani-ferrous-private-li-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-27-september-2011"},"modified":"2018-11-08T23:44:29","modified_gmt":"2018-11-08T18:14:29","slug":"ms-bhawani-ferrous-private-li-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-27-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhawani-ferrous-private-li-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-27-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Bhawani Ferrous Private Li vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 27 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M\/S Bhawani Ferrous Private Li vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 27 September, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>              In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi\n\n                     W.P.(C) No.2239 of 2011\n\n              M\/s. Bhawani Ferrous Private Limited................ Petitioner\n\n                     VERSUS\n\n              Jharkhand State Electricity Board and others...Respondents\n\n              CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD\n\n              For the Petitioner : Mr. M. S .Mittal, Sr. Advocate\n              For the Board     : Mr. Rajesh Shankar, Advocate\n\nReserved on 13.9.2011                                   Delivered on 27.9.2011\n\n9\/ 27.9.11<\/pre>\n<p>.          The petitioner, a company incorporated under the provision<\/p>\n<p>              of the Companies Act set up its unit in the year 2002. It got electric<\/p>\n<p>              connection from the Jharkhand State Electricity Board for a contract<\/p>\n<p>              demand of 100 KVA and an agreement to that effect was executed<\/p>\n<p>              on 20.11.2002 wherein purpose for supply was mentioned as &#8216;wire<\/p>\n<p>              drawing&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p>                     On 2.6.2003 the contract demand of the company was<\/p>\n<p>              enhanced to 300 KVA and hence, agreement was arrived at<\/p>\n<p>              wherein the purpose was mentioned as &#8220;Wire Drawing&#8221; and Re-<\/p>\n<p>              Rolling Mill. The Tariff Schedule which was made applicable was<\/p>\n<p>              mentioned as HTS-I and accordingly, bills were being raised which<\/p>\n<p>              were raised till December, 2003. From January bills were being<\/p>\n<p>              raised under 2004 Tariff Schedule and the payments were made.<\/p>\n<p>                     In February, the contract demand was enhanced from 400<\/p>\n<p>              KVA to 2800 KVA and subsequently upto 3400 KVA. Accordingly<\/p>\n<p>              agreement was executed       wherein purpose was shown as &#8216;Re-<\/p>\n<p>              rolling and Melting of Iron&#8217;. The tariff schedule which was<\/p>\n<p>              applicable   was   mentioned     as   HTSS     (Induction   Furness).<\/p>\n<p>              Accordingly, bill on being raised under 2004 tariff were being paid.<\/p>\n<p>                     Again in June, 2010 when the contract demand of the<\/p>\n<p>              company was enhanced to 3800 KVA, an agreement was executed<\/p>\n<p>              wherein tariff schedule applicable was mentioned as HTSS<\/p>\n<p>              (Induction Furnace). Accordingly, bills were being raised under<br \/>\n 2010 tariff. In the month of October, 2010, the petitioner was served<\/p>\n<p>with a notice issued by the Electrical Superintending Engineer<\/p>\n<p>intimating therein that the petitioner&#8217;s unit never falls within HTSS<\/p>\n<p>tariff category rather falls within the ambit of HTS category. In<\/p>\n<p>January it was informed that the company needs to take two<\/p>\n<p>separate connection one under HTS-II tariff category and other<\/p>\n<p>under HTSS tariff category, failing which the Board will be charging<\/p>\n<p>bills under HTS-II tariff category which according to the petitioner<\/p>\n<p>was quite illegal. It is also the case that on getting the said notice,<\/p>\n<p>the petitioner was contemplating to agitate the issue but in the<\/p>\n<p>meantime, the petitioner was served with bill         for the month of<\/p>\n<p>March, 2011 which had been raised under HTS tariff category and<\/p>\n<p>that necessitated filing of this writ application for quashing of the<\/p>\n<p>energy bill of March, 2011 and also for quashing the letter dated<\/p>\n<p>9.3.2011 issued by the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric<\/p>\n<p>Supply Circle, Deoghar whereby directions were issued to the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner to install a separate meter for its Re-rolling Mill in spite of<\/p>\n<p>the fact that point of supply is single which as per agreement is for<\/p>\n<p>Re-rolling and Melting of Steel.\n<\/p>\n<p>          Mr.Mitttal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner submitted that since the inception of the factory, the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner had entered into an agreement with the Board on four<\/p>\n<p>different points of time but at all occasions, the point of supply has<\/p>\n<p>been mentioned as single and therefore, any directive issued by the<\/p>\n<p>authority of the Board to have separate connection for both the<\/p>\n<p>units would be contrary to the agreement and also in derogation of<\/p>\n<p>clause 9.3 of the Supply Code Regulation and that agreement<\/p>\n<p>entered into between the parties does postulate of charging the<\/p>\n<p>energy bill as HTSS tariff and therefore, officer of the Board does<\/p>\n<p>not have any authority to charge electric bill unilaterally under HTS<\/p>\n<p>tariff.\n<\/p>\n<p>        It was also contended that under the agreement, the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner was always put under the category of HTSS, tariff which<\/p>\n<p>always used to be higher than tariff of HTS and the petitioner<\/p>\n<p>happily accepted that status and went on making payment of the<\/p>\n<p>electric energy but under the new tariff of 2010, when tariff of HTSS<\/p>\n<p>has been lowered down, the petitioner is being sought to be put in<\/p>\n<p>HTS category and this action of the respondent-Board is quite<\/p>\n<p>arbitrary. Therefore, bill raised for the month of March, 2011 on the<\/p>\n<p>basis of HTS tariff is quite illegal and is fit to be set aside.<\/p>\n<p>       Mr. Rajesh Shankar, leaned counsel appearing for the Board<\/p>\n<p>submitted that the petitioner had executed an agreement on June,<\/p>\n<p>2010 for enhancement of load from 3400 to 3800 KVA for Re-<\/p>\n<p>Rolling and Melting of Iron on HTSS induction. In course of time,<\/p>\n<p>Jharkhand State Regulatory Commission came with tariff 2010-11<\/p>\n<p>whereby HTSS (33 KVA) category is applicable for induction<\/p>\n<p>furnace\/arc furnace of contract demand of 300 KVA or more<\/p>\n<p>whereas for other consumption like Rolling\/Re-Rolling it was put<\/p>\n<p>under HTS category.\n<\/p>\n<p>       It was further pointed out that since clubbing of both the tariff<\/p>\n<p>is not permissible, the petitioner was requested to apply for new<\/p>\n<p>connection for their HTSS category but the petitioner did not take<\/p>\n<p>any initiative and therefore, there was no option left with the<\/p>\n<p>authority but to issue bill for March, 2011 applying tariff of HTS<\/p>\n<p>category and thus, the application is devoid of any merit and is<\/p>\n<p>liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Admittedly, the petitioner has been running factory since,<\/p>\n<p>2002 and since then, the petitioner had entered into an agreement<\/p>\n<p>with the Electricity Board at different occasion. Lastly, the petitioner<\/p>\n<p>entered into an agreement for a contract demand of 3800 KVA in<\/p>\n<p>June, 2010 wherein point of supply was shown as single for Re-<\/p>\n<p>Rolling and Melting of Steel Iron. As per the agreement, tariff which<br \/>\n       was to be applied was HTSS (induction furnace) in terms of clause<\/p>\n<p>      5.25 category of 2004 tariff which reads as follows:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                      5.25 category &#8211; 8:HT Special Service (HTSS) (HT<br \/>\n                      consumer with induction furnace)<\/p>\n<p>                      &#8221; This tariff schedule shall apply to all consumers who<br \/>\n                      have a contracted demand of 300 KVA and more for<br \/>\n                      induction furnace, however, it will not apply to casting<br \/>\n                      units having induction furnace of melting capacity of<br \/>\n                      500 Kg. or below&#8221;.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>                Under 2010 tariff, the situation got changed whereby High<\/p>\n<p>      Tension Voltage Supply Service has been put in HTS category<\/p>\n<p>      whose applicability has been defined hereunder:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                       &#8220;The schedule shall apply for all consumers including<br \/>\n                      induction\/arc furnaces having contract demand above<br \/>\n                      100 KVA&#8221;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                      &#8220;This tariff schedule shall also apply to all consumers<br \/>\n                      who have a contract demand of 300 KVA and more<br \/>\n                      for induction\/arc furnace under the HTSS tariff<br \/>\n                      earlier&#8221;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                Thus, there has been clear cut departure from earlier tariff.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      Under the new tariff unit having induction\/ arc furnace, which had<\/p>\n<p>      been put in HTSS tariff under the 2004 tariff, has now been put<\/p>\n<p>      under HTS tariff which would be quite enforceable in view of one of<\/p>\n<p>      the clause of the agreement entered into in between the Board and<\/p>\n<p>      the petitioner which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                      &#8221; The Board shall be at liberty at any time to alter the<br \/>\n                      demand charges, energy charges including fuel<br \/>\n                      surcharge and minimum guarantee charges as set<br \/>\n                      out in the schedule appended hereto and this<br \/>\n                      schedule shall be deemed as having been<br \/>\n                      automatically revised with effect from the date the<br \/>\n                      Board enforces the new tariff rate for the consumer.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>                Thus, I do not find any substance in the submission made on<br \/>\n      behalf of the petitioner that the Board does not have any authority<br \/>\n      to put the petitioner to be charged under HTS tariff instead of HTSS<br \/>\n      tariff.\n<\/p>\n<p>                Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this application and<\/p>\n<p>      hence, this application stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                         ( R. R. Prasad, J.)<br \/>\nND\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jharkhand High Court M\/S Bhawani Ferrous Private Li vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 27 September, 2011 In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi W.P.(C) No.2239 of 2011 M\/s. Bhawani Ferrous Private Limited&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;. Petitioner VERSUS Jharkhand State Electricity Board and others&#8230;Respondents CORAM: HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioner : Mr. M. S .Mittal, Sr. [&hellip;]<\/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":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-121474","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M\/S Bhawani Ferrous Private Li vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 27 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/ms-bhawani-ferrous-private-li-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-27-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Bhawani Ferrous Private Li vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 27 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhawani-ferrous-private-li-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-27-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-08T18:14:29+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhawani-ferrous-private-li-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-27-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhawani-ferrous-private-li-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-27-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\/S Bhawani Ferrous Private Li vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 27 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-08T18:14:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhawani-ferrous-private-li-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-27-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1181,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhawani-ferrous-private-li-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-27-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhawani-ferrous-private-li-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-27-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhawani-ferrous-private-li-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-27-september-2011\",\"name\":\"M\/S Bhawani Ferrous Private Li vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 27 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-08T18:14:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhawani-ferrous-private-li-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-27-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhawani-ferrous-private-li-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-27-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhawani-ferrous-private-li-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-27-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\/S Bhawani Ferrous Private Li vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 27 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"M\/S Bhawani Ferrous Private Li vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 27 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/ms-bhawani-ferrous-private-li-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-27-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Bhawani Ferrous Private Li vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 27 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhawani-ferrous-private-li-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-27-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-08T18:14:29+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhawani-ferrous-private-li-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-27-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhawani-ferrous-private-li-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-27-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Bhawani Ferrous Private Li vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 27 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-08T18:14:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhawani-ferrous-private-li-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-27-september-2011"},"wordCount":1181,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhawani-ferrous-private-li-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-27-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhawani-ferrous-private-li-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-27-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhawani-ferrous-private-li-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-27-september-2011","name":"M\/S Bhawani Ferrous Private Li vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 27 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-08T18:14:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhawani-ferrous-private-li-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-27-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhawani-ferrous-private-li-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-27-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bhawani-ferrous-private-li-vs-jharkhand-state-electricity-bo-on-27-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Bhawani Ferrous Private Li vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo on 27 September, 2011"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/121474","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=121474"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121474\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=121474"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=121474"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=121474"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}