Allowed

Sri Jaya Maaruthi Yarn India P Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory

Madras HC6 Mar 2024WP/5791/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed writ petitions seeking relief from electricity collection until prior outstanding industrial dues were adjusted. The court allowed the petitions based on the respondents' admission of the dues.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued forbearing respondents from collecting current consumption charges and directing adjustment of outstanding dues first against these charges.

Sri Jaya Maaruthi Yarn India P Ltd. Vs Tamil Nadu… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.Nos.5791 & 5793 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 06.03.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

W.P.Nos.5791 & 5793 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos. 6424 & 6425 of 2024

¶7

Sri Jaya Maaruthi Yarn India P Ltd., S.F.No.162/1, NH 47, Pachampalayam, Sankari West – 637 303, Komarapalayam Taluk, Rep. by its Director V.Suresh Kumar

¶8

.. Petitioner in both WPs

¶9

¶10

1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission Repd. by its Secretary, 19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, (Marshall's Road), Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶11

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

¶12

3.Director Finance

¶13

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶14

1 / 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.Nos.5791 & 5793 of 2024

¶16

4.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Namakkal Electricity Distribution Circle, Namakkal.

¶17

5.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Tirunelveli Electricity Distribution Circle, Tirunelveli.

¶18

.... Respondents in both WPs

¶19

PRAYER in W.P.No.5791 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the Respondents and their men, agents from collecting current consumption charges, demand charges and any arrears from the petitioner H.T.Sc.No.049094370473 until the Respondents makes payment of the outstanding dues of Rs.5,95,251/for the year of 2022–2023 payable to the Petitioner or give adjustment in the current consumption charges payable by the Petitioner till the entire amount is adjusted.

¶20

PRAYER in W.P.No.5793 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the Respondents and their men, agents from collecting current consumption charges, demand charges and any arrears from the petitioner H.T.Sc.No.049094370473 until the Respondents makes payment of the outstanding dues of Rs.1,84,925/for the year of 2022–2023 payable to the Petitioner or give adjustment in the current consumption charges payable by the Petitioner till the entire amount is adjusted.

¶21

2 / 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P.Nos.5791 & 5793 of 2024

¶23

(in both WPs) For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravanakumar For Respondents : Mr.S.Kalaiselvan (in both WPs) Standing Counsel

¶24

COMMON ORDER

¶25

Mr.S.Kalaiselvan, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice for the

¶26

respondents and is armed with instructions to enable final disposal of these matters, even at the stage of admission.

¶27

The prayer is for a mandamus forbearing the respondents, officials of the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) from collecting current consumption charges or any further charges till the entirety of the outstanding dues of Rs.5,95,251/- (W.P.No.5791 of 2024) and Rs.1,84,925/- (W.P.No.5793 of 2024) is adjusted as against the consumption charges.

¶28

Mr.S.Kalaiselvan would acquiesce to the position that the amount of Rs.5,95,251/- (W.P.No.5791 of 2024) and Rs.1,84,925/- (W.P.No.5793 of 2024) as quantified by the petitioner is, indeed, arrears due to the petitioner.

¶29

Thus, and in light of the aforesaid admission, mandamus is issued forbearing the respondents from collecting the current consumption charges and directing the respondents to adjust the outstanding dues first as against the charges.

¶30

3 / 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.Nos.5791 & 5793 of 2024

¶32

It is seen that similar orders have been passed in identical

¶33

circumstances in Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.33072 of 2022 dated 07.12.2022

¶34

and W.P.No.1857 of 2023 dated 14.02.2023.

¶35

In light of the above, these Writ Petitions stand allowed. No costs.

¶36

Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶37

06.03.2024

¶38

Index : Yes/No Speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes vs

¶39

1.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission 19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai,(Marshall's Road), Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶40

2.The Chairman,

¶41

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶42

3.The Director Finance

¶43

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, 144, Anna Salai,Chennai – 600 002.

¶44

4.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Namakkal Electricity Distribution Circle, Namakkal.

¶45

5.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Tirunelveli Electricity Distribution Circle, Tirunelveli.

¶46

4 / 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

W.P.Nos.5791 & 5793 of 2024

¶48

DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.

¶49

¶50

W.P.Nos.5791 & 5793 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos. 6424 & 6425 of 2024

¶51

06.03.2024

¶52

5 / 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Sri Jaya Maaruthi Yarn India P Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Jaya Maaruthi Yarn India P Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Agp Yarn Private Limited Vs the Director

K.Krishnakumar, Vs the Project Director

Dr.Ebin Jose Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M/S.Sri Sairam Impex, Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Dr.B.R.Raveena Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

Dhana Vimal Vs the Secretary to Government