KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. versus LOTTE POWERGEN (PVT.) LIMITED
Sections 42 and 54 Electric Power Act (XL of 1997), Regulation of Delivery and Distribution, Section 22, Provo National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Generation) Rules, 2000, R7 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O XXXIX, Declaration And the injunction order, the sale of bulk electricity consumers, was the second tier supply business for the plaintiff's electricity distribution company and the plaintiff had a license to generate electricity. The plaintiff received such permission from his own chemical manufacturing unit and the permission granted by the defendant to the plaintiff was that the power generation facility was set up to benefit from some financial incentives in which Waldetti The plaintiff presented a preliminary case that was granted. The defendants were unprofitable to the law to engage with the second-tier supply business and generation license, and the invalid balance was in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant if the defendants wanted to receive the benefits derived from the law. And if they failed to do so, they acted in their own risk. Powerpower customers were rewarded for denying the plaintiff the benefit of a permanent material relationship with the chemical manufacturing unit. It would be more painful to deny the opportunity of the plaintiff while the plaintiff for the plaintiff And may suffer irreparable harm and injury. This was denied, as the loss due to bulk power users could not be simply due to lost income stream but bulk power users have consumed such a large amount of power that if any of them were off line So, look for this distribution
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
