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

2009 Supreme(Mad) 3835

High Court of Judicature at Madras
MR. JUSTICE S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KIRUBAKARAN
Madura Coats Ltd. rep. by its Vice President, Legal & Company Secretary & Others Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu repd. by its Secretary to Government & Others
W.A.Nos.175, 225, 226 and 1092 of 2002
Decided On : 18-09-2009

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants:C. Seethapathy, R.S. Pandiyaraj, M. Kamalanathan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:S. Ramasamy Additional Advocate General, J. Ravindran, Advocate.

The court emphasized the authority of the Electricity Board to alter terms and conditions of supply, considering financial constraints and previous Supreme Court judgments supporting the denial of interest on security deposits.

Headnote:

Interest on Current Consumption Deposit - Electricity Supply - Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 - Clause 36.00, 36.01, 36.02 - The court upheld the validity of the amendment withdrawing the payment of interest on current consumption deposit, citing the Board's right to change terms and conditions of supply of electricity and the power to relax, modify, or waive any clauses. The judgment referenced key legal provisions and their interpretations, emphasizing the Board's jurisdiction and financial constraints as justifications for the amendment.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants challenged the withdrawal of interest on current consumption deposit by the Electricity Board, citing unconstitutionality and arbitrariness. The Board justified the amendment due to heavy financial losses and the need to ensure proper payment of electricity consumption charges.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the amendment to be valid, considering the Board's financial position and its authority to alter terms and conditions. It held that the denial of interest was warranted and not arbitrary, referencing previous Supreme Court judgments.

Issues: Validity of the amendment withdrawing interest on current consumption deposit, compliance with principles of natural justice, and unilateral action by the Electricity Board.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the validity of the amendment based on the Board's financial constraints, its authority to alter terms and conditions, and previous Supreme Court judgments supporting the denial of interest on security deposits.

Final Decision: The writ appeals were dismissed, and the court confirmed the reasoning of the Single Judge, upholding the validity of the amendment. No costs were awarded.

Judgment :-

N. Kirubakaran, J.

These writ appeals have been preferred against the orders passed in W.P.Nos.15685, 20970, 14691 and 13951 of 2001 dated 29. 2001, 29. 2001, 29. 2001 and 29. 2001 respectively dismissing the aforesaid writ petitions confirming the proceedings of the third respondent in his proceedings permanent B.P.167 dated 110. 2000 in respect of withdrawal of payment of interest on current consumption deposit by members of the Appellants-associations and quash the same.

2. The case of the appellants herein after referred to as "petitioners" before the learned Single Judge was that the withdrawal of payment of interest on current consumption deposit is un-constitutional and the amendment is arbitrary.

3. The appellants herein are low tension and high tension electricity consumers and they were covered by the terms and conditions of supply of electricity of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Before availing the supply, the petitioners have to pay initial current consumption deposit as per clause 12. Clause 15.05 prescribes that current deposit for high tension service connection including those under L.T. IV two part system will be reviewed and refixed once a year in the months of April and May. The average of the current consumption charges for the preceding 12 months prior to the month of April of that year would be arrived at and a sum equal to one and half times this average will be calculated. The higher of the two viz, the calculated amount and the initial current consumption deposit to be held will be the revised current consumption deposit. Clause 15-09 prescribes that interest would be paid by the Board on Current Consumption Deposit at the rate as may be fixed by the Board from time to time.

4. Class-36.00 deals with the Boards rights regarding the terms and conditions of supply of electricity. 36.01 states that the board will have the right to change from time to time, the terms and conditions of supply of electricity in respect by special or general proceedings. Clause 36.02 states that the Board will have the right to relax, modify or waive any of the clauses of terms and conditions or supply of electricity in respect of any consumer or any clause of consumer.

5. The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order namely permanent B.P. (FB) No.167 dated 110. 2000 by which the interest regarding current consumption deposit was deleted. The said amendment was made in exercise of powers conferred under Section 49 of Electricity (Supply) Act 1948, (Central Act LIV 1948 read with Section 79 (J) of the Act. The petitioners contended that withdrawal of interest on the current consumption deposit would add more sufferance to the textile and spinning mills, which were already taking heavy financial burden. The petitioners contended that the Board altered the conditions and denied the payment of interest on current consumption deposit.

6. The respondents contended that the Electricity Board was already facing heavy loss and the Electricity Board was unable to pay interest on current consumption deposit. It is also submitted that the Board had loss in 2000-2001 financial year was a sum of Rs.10,95,92,00,000/-and in view of heavy loss it was decided to repeal the conditions which provided for payment of interest on current consumption deposit. It is further submitted that the board had to make advance payment out of its borrowed funds, which carry heavy interest for procuring coal and laying of lines, procurement of ships, cost of coal and cost of oil and other inputs to both public sector and private sector organisations. The Board had to make colossal advance payments to all its suppliers when the consumers avail electricity supply from the respondent Board on credit basis without basis without liability for making payment with interest.

7. The respondent Board submitted that the consumption charge are not collected in advance and after allowing the consumer for 30 or 60 days as interval as the case may be and dem











































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top