The High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous because the petitioner company had gone into liquidation, been sold, and the maintenance of the petition was reported as not possible against the original entity.
The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous; connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.23402 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :21.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.No.23402 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 to 3 of 2015
M/s.Ind Barathi Poergencom Ltd. Having its Corporate Office at Old No.129, New No.20, Chamiers Road Nandanam Chennai 600 035 Rep. by its President (Commercial & Legal)
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State Load Despatch Centre (SLDC) Rep. by its Executive Engineer No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002
2.The Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd. (TANTRANSCO) Rep. by its Chairman 144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002
3.The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TANGEDCO) Rep. by its Chairman 144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002 ... Respondents
Page No.1 of 4
PRAYER:
W.P.No.23402 of 2015
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent herein relating to the proceedings in Message No.619 dt. 19.07.2015 and quash the same and forbear the respondents from issuing back down instructions to the petitioner without restricting such backing down to the minimum threshold limits as directed by Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi in its order dt.30.06.2014 in Appeal No.327 of 2013 and reiterated by the TNERC in its order dt. 01.07.2015 in M.P.No.14 of 2012.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ravichandran
For Respondents : Mr.S.Madhusudanan Standing counsel for R1 to R3 O R D E R
Though the writ petition is filed by the petitioner Company, it is
now reported that the petitioner Company has gone into liquidation and liquidator is also appointed and the Company is also sold now.
2.Such view of the matter, maintaining of the writ Petition by the
same Company is not maintainable and thereby the writ petition becomes infructuous. It is well open to the auction purchaser to claim the same as
per law.
Page No.2 of 4
W.P.No.23402 of 2015
3.This writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous accordingly. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
21.09.2022
kas Index: yes / no Internet: yes / no Speaking / Non speaking To 1.The State Load Despatch Centre (SLDC) Rep. by its Executive Engineer No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002 2.The Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd. (TANTRANSCO) Rep. by its Chairman 144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002 3.The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TANGEDCO) Rep. by its Chairman 144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002
Page No.3 of 4
W.P.No.23402 of 2015
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
kas
W.P.No.23402 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 to 3 of 2015
21.09.2022
Page No.4 of 4
M/s.Ind Barathi Poergencom Ltd.
The State Load Despatch Centre (SLDC)
The Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd. (TANTRANSCO)
The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TANGEDCO)
N. Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
