Disposed

M/S.Hotel Palmgrove v. Tamil Nadu Electricity

Madras HC5 Nov 2019WP/29256/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging proceedings over peak hour electricity charges, the High Court reserved 1.5 pending before the Supreme Court, directing a status quo in that matter. However, considering the petitioner's partial payment and agreement to settle the balance without penalties, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit the balance amount within four weeks before disposing of the writ.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to deposit the balance dues within four weeks; Writ Petition disposed.

M/S.Hotel Palmgrove Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.11.2019

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶4

W.P.No.29256 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011

¶5

M/s.Hotel Palmgrove, represented by its Director, Mr.K.Gautam Ballal, 112, Kodambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 045

¶6

...Petitioner Vs. 1. Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, Represented by its Secretary, No.19-A, Rukmani Sabhapathi Salai, (Marshall's Road), Egmore, Chennai 600 008. 2. The Chairman, The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.144, Annasalai, Chennai 600 002. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited, Chennai, EDC/Central, Chennai 600 034. ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent vide Letter No.SE/CEDC/C/DFC/AAO/HT/AS/D.251/2011, dated 03.11.2011 and quash the same.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Suresh

¶9

For Respondents: Mr.P.R.Dhilipkumar Standing counsel for TNEB

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This writ petition has filed seeking to quash the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Letter No.SE/CEDC/C/DFC/AAO/HT/AS/D.251/2011, dated 03.11.2011.

¶13

*2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the matter relates to peak hour electricity charges. It is submitted that the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.24,055/initially and, thereafter, a sum of Rs.5,22,331/-. Subsequently, the Division Bench of this Court has passed an order affirming the validity of collection of peak hour electricity charges. Hence, counsel, on instructions submits that the petitioner may be permitted to deposit the remaining amount without any BPSC charges and penal interest and request grant of reasonable time for deposit.

¶14

3. In this regard, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal Nos.1090 – 1099 of 2011 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 04.02.2011 entertained the Civil Appeals against the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal. On a perusal of the interim order dated 04.02.2011, there is a direction to the appellant therein/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to furnish Bank Guarantee of a Nationalized Bank in favour of the Registrar (Judicial) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶15

4. Since the issue involved in the present writ petition is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court at the instance of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to maintain status-quo as on date and subject to the outcome of the order to be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the parties are at liberty to work out their remedies in a manner known to law. ”

¶16

5.In view of the above judgement of the Division Bench of this Court and also considering the fact that the petitioner has accepted the Provisional Assessment Order and he has also paid substantial amount to the tune of Rs.24,055/- and agreed to pay the remaining amount without BPSC and penal interest, this Court is inclined to direct the petitioner to deposit the balance due after adjusting the amount already paid by him within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

6.With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar(CS) Dated:26.12.2019

¶21

//True Copy//

¶22

*Corrected as per order of

¶23

this Court dated 18.11.20 20 and made in WP.No.29256/1 1

¶24

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CSII)
dt 03/12/2020
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rka
To
1.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission,
No.19-A, Rukmani Sabhapathi Salai,
(Marshall's Road), Egmore,Chennai 600 008.
2. The Chairman,
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Amended order to
No.144, Annasalai, Chennai 600 002. be substituted
For the order already
3. The Superintending Engineer, despatched on 16/03/2020
Tamil Nadu Generation &
Distribution
Corporation Limited,
Chennai, EDC/Central,
Chennai 600 034.
+1cc to Mr.P.R.Dhilipkumar , Advocate SR.No. 37275
+1cc to Mr.A.Suresh , Advocate SR.No. 92571
W.P.No.29256 of 2011
and
M.P.No.1 of 2011
A.SK(27/12/2019)
A.SK(04/12/2020)

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S.Hotel Palmgrove v. Tamil Nadu Electricity

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Hotel Palmgrove v. Tamil Nadu Electricity

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

A.Yogesh, Vs The Chairman

Mr.I. Thamarai Selvan Vs the Chairman

Rajammal Vs The commissioner of Municipal

Ranganathan, Vs Govt. of Pudhucherry

T.Shanmugam Vs the District Registrar

S.Selvaraj Vs the Commissioner