Allowed

Jothi Malleables (P) Ltd. Htsc No. 033 v. The Chairman

Madras HC17 Dec 2021WP/27189/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Madras High Court directed the petitioner to pay outstanding additional surcharge and BPSC charges in six equal instalments, distinguishing it from a prior similar case where interest was reduced.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay Rs.51,61,163/- in six equal instalments; Respondents permitted to accept payment under this arrangement.

Jothi Malleables (P) Ltd. Htsc No. 033 Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17.12.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P.No.27189 of 2021

¶6

Jothi Malleables (Pvt) Ltd HTSC No.033, B-22, Sastri Road, Post Box No.950, Thillainagar,

¶7

Trichi District,

¶8

Rep.by its Authorised Signatory, M.Ponnarasan .. Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶11

The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Trichy Electricity Distribution Circle, Trichy. .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to permit the petitioner to pay the past period arrears of additional surcharge of Rs.51,61,163/- in 10 equal instalments along with their regular CC charges.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj For Respondents : Mr.Abdul Kalam, Standing counsel

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The above Writ Petition is filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to permit the petitioner to pay the past period arrears of additional surcharge of Rs.51,61,163/- in 10 equal instalments along with their regular CC charges.

¶16

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

¶17

Mr.Abdul Kalam, learned Government Advocate takes notice to the Respondents.

¶18

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was

¶19

informed by the Respondents vide demand letter dated 26.11.2021 to pay additional surcharge for the past period from 04.2021 to 30.10.2021 along with BPSC charges calculated at 1.5% per month (i.e.,18% per year) in one lump sum within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the impugned notice, failing which the petitioner's HT service connection will be disconnected. The petitioner could not fulfil the demand of the Respondents, due to COVID-19 Pandemic situation. While being so, the impugned order directing payment of charges as demanded by the Respondent in one lump sum would result in serious prejudice and hardship and would cause huge amount of loss to the petitioner as he is already facing financial crisis. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed seeking the above relief.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that already similar issue has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.3075 to 3078 vide its order dated 24.04.2008 and the same relief may be granted to the petitioner as in the aforesaid Appeals by this Court and the petitioner may be permitted to pay the past arrears of additional surcharge with BPSC at 1% per month (i.e.12% per year) in ten equal instalments along with their regular CC charges.

¶21

The learned Government Advocate denied the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner placing his reliance on the order passed in W.A.Nos.3075 to 3078 and submits that the facts of the present case is not similar to the case which was dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court. Hence the relief sought for in the present petition in line with the order passed in aforesaid appeals cannot be granted and therefore, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel on the either side.

¶23

Though the Writ Appeal Nos.3075 to 3978 of 2003 has been pressed into service by petitioner, thought the Division Bench had ordered payment of BPSC charges, however in the facts of the said case, the Division Bench had reduced the interest component. However, the facts in the present case are not identical to the case before the Division Bench and therefore, modification in the interest would not arise. Therefore, this Court in the interest of justice feels that the amount quantified by the Respondents may be permitted to be paid in six equal instalments.

¶24

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

¶25

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.51,61,163/- as quantified by the respondents in six instalments, of which the first instalment shall be paid on 05.01.2022 and the subsequent instalment shall be paid on the 5^th day of every subsequent month. No costs.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

NHS

¶31

¶32

The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶33

The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Trichy Electricity Distribution Circle, Trichy.

¶34

+1cc to Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj, Advocate, S.R.No. 67850

¶35

W.P.No.27189 of 2021

¶36

SPD (CO) TE (20/12/2021)

¶37

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

Jothi Malleables (P) Ltd. Htsc No. 033 v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jothi Malleables (P) Ltd. Htsc No. 033 v. The Chairman

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

K.Rangadurai Vs The District collector

M/s.Hyfa Catering Vs The General Manager

A.Rajarajan Vs The Registrar

M.Monica, Vs The Registrar

R.Amulraj Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (Tangedco)

Jothi Micro Cast (P) Ltd. Htsc No. 052 Vs The Chairman