Dismissed

Aashi India Glass Ltd. v. Tamil nadu Electricity

Madras HC5 Apr 2022WP/21948/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court single judge disposed of a writ petition contesting withdrawal of a financial concession. Directed the petitioner to continue paying 50% of demanded charges pending the outcome of pending division bench appeals, subject to a final refund if the division bench rules in favor of the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to continue paying 50% of the demand made towards deemed demand charges until the writ appeal is disposed of by the Division Bench.

Aashi India Glass Ltd. Vs Tamil nadu… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.04.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

W.P.NO.21948 OF 2014 & M.P.NOS.1 AND 2 OF 2014

¶6

Aashi India Glass Ltd., Rep. by its Section Head Power, L.Srinivasan, Plot No.F-76 to F-81, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram District. ... Petitioner .Vs.

¶7

The Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, 19-Am Rukmani Lakshmipathy Salai, (Marshalls Road), Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. 2. The Chairman, TANGEDCO, The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. 3. The Chief Financial Controller/Revenue, TANGEDCO (Accounts Branch), No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Chengalpattu Electricity Distribution Circle, Chengalpattu.

¶8

... Respondents PRAYER:-

¶9

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified

¶10

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

¶11

Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the third respondent herein in Lr.No.CFC/FC/DFC/AAO.HT/AS.3/REV/D/No.115/13 dated 29.07.2013, wherein the "Deemed Demand Benefit" was withdrawn unilaterally and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to restore the "Deemed Demand Benefit" to the petitioner in H.T.S.C.No.424.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Dinesh KUmar

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh Standing Counsel

¶14

ORDER

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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:

¶18

"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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

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 challenge 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."

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

r n s

¶28

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

¶29

To
1.	The Secretary, The Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, 19-Am Rukmani Lakshmipathy Salai, (Marshalls Road), Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
2.	The Chairman, TANGEDCO, The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
3.	The Chief Financial Controller/Revenue, TANGEDCO (Accounts Branch), No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
4.	The Superintending Engineer, Chengalpattu Electricity Distribution Circle, Chengalpattu.
	W.P.NO.21948 OF 2014 & M.P.NOS.1 AND 2 OF 2014

¶30

MG(CO) PBS/02/05/2022

¶31

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

Aashi India Glass Ltd. v. Tamil nadu Electricity

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aashi India Glass Ltd. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Ramachandran Vs the Chairman

N.Velu Vs Tamilnadu Electricity Board

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

S.Vasanthi, Vs the Assistant Engineer

D.Deeyaneswar Vs State of Tamil Nadu

K.Sekar, Vs the Divisional Engineer