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

1997 Supreme(Mad) 661

RAJU
Asmath Begum – Appellant
Versus
The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Mattur. and others – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr. S. Rajasekar Advocate for Appellant. Mr. V. Rangabashyam, Advocate for Respondent.

Judgment :

1. The above second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Salem, dated 1. 1983 in A.S. No. 129 of 1982, whereunder, the First/Appellate Judge has chosen to set aside and reverse the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge and dismissed the suit.

2. The suit O.S.No.225 of 1981 was filed by the respondent-plaintiff on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mettur, for declaring that the claim of Rs. 14,536.20 said to be the penal charges on the excess over quote consumption for service connection 702 of Omalur, which stands in the name of the plaintiff and included in the electric bill for the month of July, 1980 is illegal, arbitrary and unenforceable in law and for a permanent injunction restraining them from disconnecting the service connection for the nonpayment of the alleged sum of Rs. 14,5320. The service connection in question pertains to a cinema theatre at Omalur and there can be no dispute that at the relevant point of time, quota system was enforced on account of the power cut between September, 1976 and April, 1977 during which period, the plaintiff was said to have been given only 500 Units of electricit





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