PSUs shouldn't behave like Shylock to become money-minded: SC
Supreme Court
has said that public sector units should not be guided only by commercial interests for making money like a private company but their conduct must be like a model citizen and came down on Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (GUVNL) for behaving like "Shylock" and getting into unnecessary litigation on tariff against wind power producers in Gujarat from which it purchases power.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma rejected the plea of GUVNL which contended that tariff rate of Rs 3.56 per kWh as mentioned in power purchase agreements (PPAs) was binding on the four power generating companies. The court said govt has been promoting renewable energy to reduce carbon footprint and to make the country energy self-sufficient and less dependent on fossil fuels and GUVNL should be mindful of the policy.
The PSU took the stand that these wind energy projects had willingly entered into PPAs with it, binding themselves to the tariff rate of Rs 3.56 per kWh, and were, therefore, not at liberty to seek determination of tariff on a case-to-case basis thereafter, a plea which was rejected by the SC.
"GUVNL cannot be guided only by its own commercial interests, like a private business entity and it's conduct, as a state-instrumentality, must be of the standard of a model citizen. However, patently unfair treatment was sought to be meted out by GUVNL to the respondent companies by binding them to a rate that was wholly inapplicable to them. Such conduct, akin to a Shylock, does not reflect positively upon GUVNL," the bench said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
12 minutes ago
- Hans India
AP aqua farmers in tight spot as US tariffs take toll
Rajamahendravaram: Andhra Pradesh's vital aquaculture sector is facing an unprecedented crisis following the recent imposition of increased tariffs on shrimp imports by US President Donald Trump. This move, described by local farmers as a plunge 'from the frying pan into the fire', has significantly jeopardised the Rs 18,000-crore aqua export industry in the state. Andhra Pradesh is the undisputed leader in India's shrimp production and exports, contributing roughly 75 per cent of the nation's total shrimp output and about 32-33 per cent of the value of India's seafood exports. Over 10 lakh families in the state are directly or indirectly reliant on this sector, with major production hubs in West Godavari, Konaseema, Kakinada, and other districts. On July 31, the US President announced 25 per cent tariff on imports from India. The immediate consequence of the new US tariff was a sharp drop in shrimp prices. Farmers in the Godavari districts, including Konaseema and West Godavari, lament that prices have fallen by up to Rs 40 per kg. This steep decline means export prices, typically ranging from Rs 270-Rs 300 per kg, have now plummeted to Rs 220-Rs 230, resulting in a loss of Rs 40-Rs 50 per kg for farmers. The industry, which produces 4 lakh tonnes annually with 3.5 lakh tonnes earmarked for international markets, is grappling with a severe crisis. Farmers stated that by July 31, the price of 100-count shrimp had already dropped by Rs 40 per kg. According to a farmer, with new tariffs, exporting Rs 1 lakh worth of shrimp to the US could attract a tax outgo of Rs 26,000, potentially pushing the total burden further when factoring in other costs. This will not only hit cultivators hard but also the livelihoods of lakhs of daily wage labourers in associated sectors like packing, processing, and transportation, he added. Aqua sector experts warn that this price collapse would put farmers at a high risk of being unable to recover investments, leading to a debt trap. A decline in exports will also force processing units to reduce operations, potentially resulting in significant job cuts across the state. However, T Jagadeesh, a leading exporter from Bhimavaram, expressed his optimism that the aqua sector in AP would overcome the crisis. Speaking to The Hans India, Jagadeesh acknowledged the severe anxiety prevalent in the region's aqua industry, comprising nearly 200 exporters. He stated that the new US tariffs, combined with existing duties, would impose an additional burden of nearly 35 per cent on exporters. He, however, pointed out that the aqua sector is no stranger to crises and has consistently overcome challenges with determination. He further explained that state's aquaculture industry was not solely dependent on the American market, noting the availability of several alternative market opportunities. In response to this looming crisis, the state government is said to be actively considering strategies to mitigate the impact. An official confirmed that measures such as rebranding shrimp products, boosting internal marketing, and diversifying export opportunities were being explored to increase local consumption and find new markets for the beleaguered industry.
Hindustan Times
12 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Maha govt will intervene to bring Mahadevi the elephant back to Kolhapur shrine: Fadnavis
Mumbai: Following a public outcry, Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis on Wednesday assured that his government will explore legal options to bring Mahadevi, a 36-year-old arthritic elephant, back to a Jain shrine in Kolhapur, days after she was relocated to Vantara, an animal rescue and rehabilitation centre run by the Reliance Foundation in Gujarat's Jamnagar, last month following a Supreme Court order. Maha govt will intervene to bring Mahadevi the elephant back to Kolhapur shrine: Fadnavis After holding a meeting over the matter on Tuesday, Fadnavis said, 'Considering the public sentiments, the state government will intervene in the legal process to bring back the Mahadevi elephant. The Jain shrine will submit a review petition in the Supreme Court, and the state government will help them by submitting an intervention application.' The chief minister also indicated that the state forest department can set up a centre with facilities similar to Vantara at the Kolhapur shrine to take care of the elephant. Mahadevi, also known as Madhuri, was with the Swastishri Jinsen Bhattarak Pattacharya Mahaswamy Sanstha at Nandani in Kolhapur for over three decades before the Supreme Court last month upheld the Bombay high court's decision to relocate her to the Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust in Jamnagar, managed by Vantara, for better care and rehabilitation. This was after animal welfare organisations such as the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) approached the court, underlining the physically frail pachyderm's poor health and arguing that she was not getting proper care at the temple. The Supreme Court upheld the high court order on July 22, after which Mahadevi was given a tearful farewell from the temple and shifted to Vantara on July 28. Following Mahadevi's relocation, thousands of people in Kolhapur participated in protests demanding her return to the shrine. The protestors boycotted Reliance Group's Jio mobile service and marched for 45 km from the shrine to Kolhapur city on August 3, even as politicians from across the spectrum announced their support. In response, Vantara has said it did not request the elephant's relocation from the shrine but only served as the 'court-appointed recipient facility'. Against this backdrop, Fadnavis held a meeting on Tuesday, which was attended by all party leaders, including deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar, Congress MLC Satej Patil, former MP Raju Shetti, and representatives of the Nandani shrine. After the meeting, Shetti claimed that Pawar said during the meeting that he had received information about three to four other elephants being relocated from various parts and temples of Maharashtra to Vantara. Pawar has directed the forest department to collect information about elephants that have been relocated outside the state. Need a response from Vantara.
Hindustan Times
12 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC cites ‘worst order' as it takes HC judge off criminal matters
The Supreme Court has directed that an Allahabad High Court judge be stripped of all criminal jurisdiction until his retirement and made to sit with a seasoned senior judge to understand the nuances of law, after finding his recent ruling to be one of the 'worst and most erroneous' orders encountered by the top court. The unusual direction, issued by a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, came in a criminal matter where the high court judge, Justice Prashant Kumar, dismissed a plea seeking quashing of a criminal case based on what the apex court termed as a purely civil dispute. 'We are constrained to observe that the impugned order is one of the worst and most erroneous orders that we have come across in our respective tenures as judges of this Court... The judge concerned has not only cut a sorry figure for himself but has made a mockery of justice. We are at our wits' end to understand what is wrong with the Indian Judiciary at the level of High Court,' said the bench in its order on Monday, expressing grave dismay over the judge's conduct. It wondered whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law. 'Whatever it be, passing of such absurd and erroneous orders is something unpardonable,' stated the bench. The top court went on to direct the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court to immediately withdraw the present 'criminal determination' from the judge, and ensure he does not handle any criminal jurisdiction henceforth. 'We direct that the concerned judge shall not be assigned any criminal determination, till he demits office. If at all at some point of time, he is to be made to sit as a single judge, he shall not be assigned any criminal determination,' the bench ordered. Justice Kumar will retire in May 2029. It also urged the high court chief justice to assign the judge to sit on a division bench with a senior judge to guide him. 'The Chief Justice shall make the concerned judge sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court,' stated the order. 'We have been constrained to issue directions…keeping in mind that the impugned order is not the only erroneous order of the concerned judge that we have looked into for the first time. Many such erroneous orders have been looked into by us over a period of time,' noted the court, indicating a pattern of concern regarding the judge's decisions. The court's directions, notably removing a sitting High Court judge from an entire category of judicial work, are rare and underscore the gravity with which the bench viewed the matter. The judgment came in an appeal against an order passed by Justice Kumar in May 2025, rejecting a plea to quash criminal proceedings in a complaint case. The dispute arose after Lalita Textiles, a small business, filed a criminal complaint against another firm, alleging non-payment of ₹7.23 lakh for supplied thread. Although a significant portion of the ₹52.34 lakh invoice had been paid, a balance remained unpaid. Lalita Textiles first attempted to register a first information report, but the police declined, stating it was a civil matter. The complainant then filed a criminal complaint, invoking Section 406 IPC (criminal breach of trust), which led to issuance of summons by a magistrate. The other firm, M/s Shikhar Chemicals, sought quashing of the summons before the high court, arguing that the matter was a contractual dispute involving recovery of money, which was a civil issue at its core. However, Justice Kumar refused to quash the proceedings, reasoning that since the complainant was a small business and lacked the resources to fight a long-drawn civil case, it should be allowed to pursue the criminal case to recover his dues. 'To be more precise, it would seem like good money chasing bad money,' he observed in the impugned order. The apex court took deep exception to these observations. 'Is it the understanding of the High Court that ultimately if the accused is convicted, the trial court would award him the balance amount? The observations recorded are shocking,' the bench held. Citing the impugned order, the bench added: 'It was expected of the High Court to know the well-settled position of law that in cases of civil dispute a complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as the same would amount to abuse of process of law.' The bench highlighted that even the magistrate had failed to understand the fundamental legal distinction between a sale transaction and entrustment of goods, and thereby misapplied Section 406 of IPC. 'We are not taken by surprise with the magistrate exhibiting complete ignorance of law as regards the position of law…However, we expected at least the High Court to understand the fine distinction between the two offences and the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust,' it said. The order added: 'The Judge has gone to the extent of saying that asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount will be very unreasonable as civil suit may take a long time before it is decided and, therefore, the complainant should be permitted to institute criminal proceedings for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount.' Calling it an 'extremely sad day' for the judiciary, the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary powers to set aside the high court's order without even issuing notice to the other side. The case has now been remanded to the Allahabad High Court to be heard afresh by a different judge, as chosen by the Chief Justice.
