Topic

intra-court appeal

2 articlesLatest August 2026
Sec 56(2) Elec Act 2003 - Supplementary demand after short-billing not barred by limitation | Short-billing : HC Punjab & Haryana
Case Law Analysis
|Punjab and Haryana High Court

Sec 56(2) Elec Act 2003 - Supplementary demand after short-billing not barred by limitation | Short-billing : HC Punjab & Haryana

By holding that the limitation clock starts when the original electricity bill is issued, the Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a later supplementary demand arising from short-billing remains enforceable despite the two-year bar in Sec 56(2). This protects utilities from indefinite liability and informs consumers that corrected arrears can be billed even years after the initial invoice.

Resignation does not preclude post-retirement medical benefits under Rule 8.4 of the Medical Attendance Rules 2009 | Voluntary retirement vs resignation interpretation : Delhi HC
Case Law Analysis
|Delhi High Court

Resignation does not preclude post-retirement medical benefits under Rule 8.4 of the Medical Attendance Rules 2009 | Voluntary retirement vs resignation interpretation : Delhi HC

A Delhi High Court ruling confirms that an employee who voluntarily retires after 25 years of service remains eligible for post-retirement medical facilities, declaring the 2010 amendment that removed ‘resignation’ from Rule 8.4 of the Medical Attendance Rules 2009 void. The decision obliges the Centre for Railway Information Systems to activate and fund the scheme for the retiree and spouse, setting a precedent for similar public-sector bodies.