Disposed

Dindigul Steel Rolling Mills v. The Chairman

Madras HC15 Dec 2021WP/23378/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recalled to order during pendency of connected writ appeal, this petition disposed of directing the petitioner to continue paying 50% of deemed demand charges until the Division Bench decides the appeal, subject to refund if the appeal succeeds.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to continue paying 50% of the demand towards deemed demand charges till the writ appeal is disposed of.

Dindigul Steel Rolling Mills Vs The Chairman — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.12.2021

¶2

C O R A M

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶4

W.P.No.23378 of 2018

¶5

and W.M.P.Nos.27282 and 27283 of 2018

¶6

Dindigul Steel Rolling Mills (P) Ltd., HTSC No.196, S.F.No.414/1, Karur Road, Kulathur Post, Dindigul,

¶7

Repd., by its Authorised Signatory Rajesh Kumar

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The Chairman,

¶11

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, (TANGEDCO),

¶12

144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶13

Chief Financial Controller/Revenue, TANGEDCO,

¶14

144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶15

The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO Ltd., Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle, Dindigul.

¶16

Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, Through its Secretary, No.19A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ...Respondents

¶17

Prayer Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, prayed for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, seeking to call for the records of the second respondent contained in impugned letter CFC/FC/DFC/AAO.HT/AS.3/REV/D.N.115/13 dated 29.07.2013 and the consequential impugned demand notice Lr.No.SE/DGL/AO/REV/F.AUDIT/D.No. 15-2/2018 dated 27.08.2018 issued by the 3^rd respondent, quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the orders of the TNERC.

¶18

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

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj For Respondents : Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh Standing Counsel for R1 to R3

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the withdrawal of the concession of the deemed demand charges extended to the petitioner by the respondents.

¶22

2.This issue was considered by the learned single Judge of this Court and similar impugned orders were quashed by this Court. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents have preferred an appeal and the same is pending in W.A.Nos.2539 & 2540 of 2018.

¶23

3.The Division Bench while entertaining the writ appeal directed the concerned parties to pay 50% of the demand made pursuant to the issuance of the impugned order. The relevant portions in the order passed by the Division Bench are extracted hereunder:

¶24

"6. This court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed. In the light of the stand taken by the Tamilnadu Electricity Regulatory Commission in the counter affidavit in paragraph No.14 in W.P.No.28256 of 2014 etc., batch of writ petitions, coupled with the decision of the said Commission, vide the order dated 31.03.2016 in R.A.No.6 of 2013, this Court is of the considered view that prima facie case has been made out for grant of interim orders.

¶25

Hence, there shall be an order of interim stay as prayed for till 17.12.2018. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Advocate General that during the pendency of the writ petitions interim stay has been granted subject to the condition that the writ petitioners pay 50% of the amount demanded within a stipulated time.

¶26

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

¶27

Therefore, in the light of the above facts and circumstances, and reasons assigned above, this Court is of the considered view that the same arrangement shall continue till the disposal of the writ appeals for the reason that appellant in the event of success in these appeals may not be able to recover it and there may be possibility of respondents / writ petitioners to wind up operations due to vagaries of business or other reasons. Therefore, without prejudice to the rights and contentions, the first respondents / writ petitioners shall continue to pay 50% of the demand made as per the impugned orders / demand, the subject matter of challege in the writ petitions, within a period of two weeks from the date of each demand. It is also made clear that the amount collected by virtue of the interim order in the writ petitions as well as in these writ appeals, by the appellant is also subject to the result of these writ appeals, and if the appellant fails, they are liable to refund the Deemed Demand Charges already collected from the first respondents / writ petitioners. Call on 17.12.2018.

¶28

4.In the light of the above order passed by the Division Bench, the petitioner has been paying the 50% deemed demand charges. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to continue to pay 50% of the demand made towards the deemed demand charges till the writ appeal is disposed of by the Division Bench. It is also made clear that the payment made by the petitioner will be subject to the result of the writ appeals and petitioner shall abide by the final orders passed by the Division Bench while disposing of the writ appeals.

¶29

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

¶30

5.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

Pns

¶36

To:

¶37

The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, (TANGEDCO),

¶38

144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶39

Chief Financial Controller/Revenue, TANGEDCO, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶40

The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO Ltd., Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle, Dindigul.

¶41

Secretary,

¶42

Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, No.19A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai,

¶43

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶44

+1 CC to Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj, advocate sr 66972.

¶45

W.P.No.23378 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.27281 to 27283 of 2018

¶46

RLD(CO) SP(11/01/2022)

¶47

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

Dindigul Steel Rolling Mills v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dindigul Steel Rolling Mills v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.J.Prakash Vs The Sheresthar

M/s.Sri Balaji Valves Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Revenue Inspector

M.Boopathy, Vs The Manager

R.Arasappan Vs The District Collector

P.Victor Joseph Raj, Vs The Chairman /

Srinivasa Reddy Bijjam Vs Union of India