SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(Mad) 870

A.R.LAKSHMANAN
Shri Bodhraj – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Others – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:Nalini Chidambaram, Sr. Counsel For M/s. Silambanan, H. Mohamed Rafi, C. S. Krishnamoorthy, Advocates.

Judgment :-

Heard Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C.S. Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. By consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing.

2. The above writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamas, directing the respondents to accept the payment of additional security deposit in twelve equal instalments from him for the service connection having Account No. 21,40.282, at Door No.45/2/A Appasamy Koil Street, Thiruvottiyur, Madras-19.

3. The petitioner is doing business of manufacturing Ice Slabs which is used for Chemical Industries and also used to preserve seafood. He has set up the unit at Madras and his factory is a small scale industry. It is stated that he got the electricity service connection in April, 1994. He had paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/ -towards initial security deposit. On 30-6-1995, the third respondent sent a demand letter to the petitioner, wherein the petitioner was directed to pay an additional security deposit of Rs. 1,06,429/ -, which was called for as per Clause 14.06 of the terms and conditions of the Tamil Nadu El




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top