Disposed

M.Muthusamy v. Abinaya Muthusamy

Madras HC7 Jun 2018REV.APPL/78/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras reviewed two applications seeking to challenge an order giving electricity service connection in the name of a temple instead of the individual petitioners. The Court held that mere service connection in the temple's name had no bearing on title or possession, and with the second respondent to recharge petitioners from their own funds, the applications were d

What did the court decide?

Nothing granted. The Review Applications stand disposed of.

M.Muthusamy Vs Abinaya Muthusamy — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21.06.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶6

Rev. Apln. (W) Nos.78 and 79 of 2017

¶7

S.Chithra

¶8

S.Chithra .. Petitioner in Rev.Apl.(W) No.78 of 2017

¶9

B.Vijayakumar .. Petitioner in Rev.Apl.(W) No.79 of 2017

¶10

¶11

1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tamil Nadu Generation and Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd.,

¶12

Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.

¶13

2.The Assistant Electrical Engineer (O & M), Tamil Nadu Generation and Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd., Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tiruppur Electricity Distribution Circle, Nallur, Tiruppur.

¶14

3.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Visveswara Swamy Temple, Nallur, Tiruppur. .. Respondents in both Rev. Applns

¶15

¶16

Review Applications preferred under Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 114 of C.P.C. against the order of this Court made in W.P. Nos.43849 and 43850 of 2016 dated 22.03.2017.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam in both Rev.Applns. For Respondents : Mr.S.K.Rameshwar for R1 and R2 Mr.M.Maharaja, Spl. Govt. Pleader for R3 in both Rev.Applns.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Seeking to review the order dated 22.03.2017 made in W.P. Nos.43849 and 43850 of 2016, the present Review Applications have been filed.

¶20

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent.

¶21

3.The operative portion of the order has been complied with and thus the petitioners have been given service connection. The grievance of the petitioners appears to be that for the others, this

¶22

¶23

Court has directed service connection to be given in the name of the occupants as against the petitioners. In the cases on hand, the service connection has been directed to be given in the name of the temple.

¶24

4.There is no necessity to review the order. Admittedly, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the respective tenements. Mere service connection in the name of the temple viz., the third respondent does not have any bearing to the title. Therefore, in effect, there is no difference as the petitioners have been given service connection.

¶25

5.With the aforesaid observation, the Review Applications stand disposed of. Even otherwise the petitioners stand on the same footing as that of the others. It is made clear that in such view of the matter, the second respondent shall receive the electricity consumption charges from the petitioners.

21.06.2017

Index:Yes/No mmi

M.M.SUNDRESH, J.

mmi

1.The Chairman,

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tamil Nadu Generation and Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd.,

¶34

Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.

¶35

2.The Assistant Electrical Engineer (O & M),

¶36

Tamil Nadu Generation and Electricity Distribution Corporation Ltd., Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tiruppur Electricity Distribution Circle, Nallur, Tiruppur.

¶37

3.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Visveswara Swamy Temple, Nallur, Tiruppur.

¶38

Rev. Appln. Nos.78 and 79 of 2017

¶39

21.06.2017

¶40

¶41

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.Muthusamy v. Abinaya Muthusamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Muthusamy v. Abinaya Muthusamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Marimuthu, Vs the Union of India

V. Ramasamy Vs M. Ranganathan

A.Thangapandian, M/a 57 Years, Vs the Inspector of Police

P Chellamuthu Vs Abinaya Muthusamy

Senthil Kumar Vs the Superintendent of Police

Shri.M.Mani Vs State Rep. by