MONNET ISPAT vs UNION OF INDIA .MINISTRY OF POWER SECRETARY — C.A. No. 18506 - 18507/2017
Case under Section IV. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010135102013
Filing Date
25-Apr-2013
Registration No
C.A. No. 18506 - 18507/2017
Diary Number
13510/2013
Order Date
13-Nov-2017
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Leave Granted & Dismissed
Last updated 07-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MONNET ISPAT
Adv. E. C. AGRAWALA
Respondent(s)
-
1.UNION OF INDIA .MINISTRY OF POWER SECRETARY
Adv. SUSHMA SURI C. K. RAI E. C. AGRAWALA MCLM & CO. (Dead / Retired / Elevated)
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-Nov-2017
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-Nov-2017
Administrative Order
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao
-
07-Dec-2015
ROPView PDF
-
07-Dec-2015
ROPView PDF
-
18-Sep-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Sep-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Jul-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Jul-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
24-Mar-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
15-Jan-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
15-Jan-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
31-Oct-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
31-Oct-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
28-Apr-2014
ROPView PDF
-
25-Apr-2014
ROPView PDF
-
25-Apr-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
29-Jan-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
28-Nov-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Oct-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
05-Aug-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-May-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
25-Apr-2013
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 18506 - 18507/2017
Case Summary: Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. v. Union of India Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed Monnet Ispat's appeals, upholding the validity of Rule 3(1)(a)(ii) of the Electricity Rules, 2005, which requires captive power plants to consume at least 51% of generated electricity annually for their own use. Key Issue: Monnet Ispat challenged the rule as ultra vires (beyond authority) after regulators determined its 90 MW plant lost captive status when consumption fell below 51%. The Court rejected arguments that force majeure events should exempt the rule and found the 51% annual consumption requirement neither arbitrary nor an unlawful delegation of legislative power. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts