Disposed

M/S. Sri MAR4UDHAMALAI Murugan v. the Tamilnadu Electricity Boar

Madras HC30 Mar 2022WP/11096/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the second respondent's order to disconnect the petitioner's electricity service. The court directed the respondents to pass fresh orders based on the outcome of a judgment pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to pass fresh orders based on the outcome of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment.

M/S. Sri MAR4UDHAMALAI Murugan Vs the… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 30.03.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

W.P.No.11096 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010

¶6

M/s.Sri Marudhamalai Murugan Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, V.Rohit Karthikeyan, S/o.K.Venkatapathy, Periyanaickenpalayam, S.R.K.Vidyalaya Post, Coimbatore - 641 020. … Petitioner Vs.

¶7

1.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by its Chairman, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶8

2.The Superintendent Engineer, Coimbatore EDC/North, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Coimbatore - 641 012. ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer :- This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order made in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/CBE/DFC/AO/REV/F.CMRI/D.24/2010, dated 10.05.2010 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and forbear the respondents from disconnecting the service connection bearing HTSC No.225 stands in the name of the petitioner.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Ethirajulu For Respondents : Mr.M.Abul Kalam Standing Counsel for TNEB

¶11

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

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the second respondent dated 10.05.2010 and direct the respondents from disconnecting the service connection bearing HTSC No.225 stands in the name of the petitioner.

¶14

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that the petitioner has paid the entire demand made by the respondents. It is also stated that the issue is now pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the parties have to work out their remedy.

¶15

In view of the above submission, the respondents are directed pass orders afresh on the basis of the outcome of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶16

With the above observation, the Writ Petition is closed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

SD/-

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶21

r n s To

¶22

1.The Chairman,

¶23

The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶24

2.The Superintendent Engineer, Coimbatore EDC/North, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Coimbatore - 641 012.

¶25

+1cc to Mr.G.Ethirajulu, Advocate Sr.21857

¶26

W.P.No.11096 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010

¶27

sv[co] srg 05/05/2022

¶28

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

M/S. Sri MAR4UDHAMALAI Murugan v. the Tamilnadu Electricity Boar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Sri MAR4UDHAMALAI Murugan v. the Tamilnadu Electricity Boar

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

R.Palanisamy, Vs the Secretary

K.Kathirvel Vs The Chairman and Managing

P.Narayanan, Vs The Chairman

S.Murugasamy, Vs the Director of Government

P.Ramalingam, Vs The Superintendent Engineer

V.Ramakrishnan, Vs Assistant Engineer