Disposed

M/s.Sakthi Steel Industries v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC18 Sept 2020WP/24276/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge writ petition disposed of the matter pending a related Supreme Court Civil Appeal. Interim injunction was granted restraining respondents from coercive steps for disconnecting electricity supply provided the petitioner pays dues excluding tax on maximum demand.

What did the court decide?

Interim injunction restraining respondents from disconnecting electricity supply, subject to payment of dues excluding tax on maximum demand.

M/s.Sakthi Steel Industries Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 18.09.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.24276 of 2016

¶6

and WMP.Nos.20749 & 20750 of 2016

¶7

M/s.Sakthi Steel Industries Ltd., H.T.Sc.314 SF.No.223 & 233 Amaravathy Pattinam Village Kattangularm Panchayat – O Kancheepuram District

¶8

Rep by its Manager Mr.V.Vaigundhan ... Petitioner Vs.

¶9

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Government Energy Department Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶10

The Chairman and Managing director TANGEDCO Ltd., 144, Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002.

¶11

The Superintending Engineer TANGEDCO Ltd., Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution Circle Kancheepuram. ... Respondents

¶12

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the second and third respondent from demanding and collecting the tax on maximum demand charges from the petitioner, M/s.Sakthi Steel Industries Ltd., H.T.Sc.No.314, as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, New Delhi on 31.08.2012 in SLP(C) No.24993 of 2012 and 25522 of 2012 etc., batch in M/s.Sri Krishna Alloys & Others Vs. Union of India & Others.

¶13

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

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Karthik Lakshmanan For Mr.K.Seshadri

¶15

For Respondents: Mrs.A.Madhumathy

¶16

Special Government Pleader for R1 Mr.P.Gunaraj Standing Counsel for TNEB [R2]

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 2 and 3, from demanding and collecting the tax on maximum demand charges from the petitioner, as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 31.08.2012 in SLP(C) No.24993 of 2012 and 25522 of 2012 etc., batch in M/s.Sri Krishna Alloys & Others Vs. Union of India & Others.

¶19

When the writ petition is taken up for hearing Mr.A.R.Karthik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.11505 of 2018, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also granted an order of interim injunction, restraining the respondents therein from taking any coercive steps for disconnecting supply of electricity to the premises of the petitioner therein, subject to the petitioner paying all charges/dues except the tax calculated on the basis of maximum demand.

¶20

The learned counsel had placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in M/s.Sri Krishna Alloys (in W.A.No.547 of 2004) and WP.No.28581 of 2003 (M/s.A.R.Metallurgicals (P) Ltd.,), wherein, in view of the Civil Appeal filed by them and the same is pending before the Supreme Court, the First Bench of this Court by order dated 02.06.2015, has disposed of the writ appeal in W.A.No.547 of 2004 and writ petition W.P.No.25851 of 2003, with an agreement that the ultimate fate of the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court would also govern the present appellant and writ petitioner, the same interim order would continue to enure to the benefit of the appellant and the writ petitioner, due to the pendency of the Special Leave Appeals.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing on either side submitted that the said interim order may be passed in the present writ petition, subject to the result in the Civil Appeals pending before the Supreme Court.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the First Bench of this Court may be passed in the present writ petition also, to which,

¶23

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

¶24

Mr.P.Gunaraj, learned Standing Counsel for TNHB had consented to it.

¶25

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and considering the fact that the Civil Appeal in 11505 of 2018, is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the present writ petition is disposed of with a agreement that the ultimate fact of the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court would also govern to the present writ petitioner, and there shall be an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from taking any coercive steps for disconnecting the electricity supply to the premises of the petitioner, subject to the petitioner paying all charges/dues except the tax calculated on the basis of maximum demand. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶26

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To:
1. The Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Energy Department
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Chairman and Managing director
TANGEDCO Ltd.,
144, Anna Salai
Chennai – 600 002.
3. The Superintending Engineer
TANGEDCO Ltd.,
Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution Circle
Kancheepuram.
+1cc to Mr.K.Seshadri, Advocate in SR.NO..30541
W.P.No.24276 of 2016
pvs(co)
rv(29/9/2020)

¶27

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

M/s.Sakthi Steel Industries v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Sakthi Steel Industries v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Arunachalam Vs The District Collector

Kalaiselvi, Vs The Inspector General of

Muniyamma, Vs The Inspector General of

P.Srikanth, Vs The Sub Registrar

Mrs.Sripriya Rajkumar Vs The Sub-Registrar

P.S.Umapathy, Vs The Chairman-Cum-