High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 08 MAD CK 0182

S.S.D. Spinning Mills Ltd. vs The Chairman, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, No. 800, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002 and The Superintendent Engineer, Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tuticorin-2

Madras High Court · Decided on 12 August 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vinod K. Sharma, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (MD) No. 9535 of 2007

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 305 words

The Honourable Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma

1.

The Petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, to quash the order, dated 6th October 2007 passed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, calling upon the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,68,744/- [Rupees One lakh Sixty eight thousand Seven hundred and Forty four only] towards additional security deposit.

2.

It is not in dispute that the Petitioner had earlier filed W.P. No. 18965 of 2006, to challenge the levy of additional current consumption deposit, on various grounds.

3.

The writ petition was finally dismissed by this Court with liberty to the petitioner, to deposit the amount, in seven installments.

4.

The impugned order has been passed in compliance to the direction issued by this Court.

5.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner does not challenge the legality of the order passed, but contends that no amount is due, as the Petitioner had already paid the amount, as per revised order, dated 11th March 2007, vide which the current consumption deposit were fixed at Rs. 77,107/- [Rupees Seventy seven thousand one hundred and seven only]. The Petitioner had paid the demanded amount during June 2007 to August 2007.

6.

This contention of the Petitioner cannot be accepted, as the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court, vide order, dated 18th August 2007 had ordered to pay additional security deposit, in seven equal installments. The order has attained finality, as the Petitioner has not filed any SLP against the order, directing the Petitioner to deposit the amount, in seven installments. It is not open to Petitioner to re-agitate the concluded matter.

7.

The writ petition, therefore, is not competent, in view of the operative order, passed by the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court, against the Petitioner.

8.

No merit. "Dismissed." No costs.