{"id":129944,"date":"2008-02-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-ms-krishna-mines-on-11-february-2008"},"modified":"2016-07-06T14:56:46","modified_gmt":"2016-07-06T09:26:46","slug":"tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-ms-krishna-mines-on-11-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-ms-krishna-mines-on-11-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs M\/S.Krishna Mines on 11 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs M\/S.Krishna Mines on 11 February, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 11\/02\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nS.A.No.387 of 2000\n\n\nTamil Nadu Electricity Board\nthrough its\nSuperintending Engineer,\nTirunelveli Electricity System,\nTirunelveli - 627 011 having\nits office at Maharajanagar,\nTirunelveli - 11.\n\t\t\t\t      .. Appellant\/Appellant\/Defendant\n\nVs\n\nM\/s.Krishna Mines,\na registered Partnership Firm,\n(Regd. No.23\/92)\nthrough its Partner K.Sankar.\n\t\t\t\t    .. Respondent\/Respondent\/Plaintiff\n\n\nPrayer\n\nAppeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the\njudgment and decree dated  02.08.1999 in A.S.No.153 of 1997 on the file of the\nlearned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli in confirmingthe judgment and\ndecree dated 24.06.1996 in O.S.No.90 of 1996 on the file of the learned\nAdditional District Munsif, Tirunelveli.\n\n\t\n!For Appellant    ... Mr.M.Suresh Kumar\n\n^For Respondent   ... Mr.M.Arumugam\n\t\t      for Mr.A.Sankarasubramanian\n\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tThis second appeal is focussed as against the  judgment and decree dated
\n02.08.1999 passed in A.S.No.153 of 1997 on the file of the learned Principal
\nDistrict Judge, Tirunelveli in confirming the judgment and decree dated
\n24.06.1996 passed in O.S.No.90 of 1996 on the file of the learned Additional
\nDistrict Munsif, Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The parties are referred to hereunder in the same order as they were
\narrayed before the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. Niggard and bereft of details, the case of the plaintiff as stood
\nexposited from the records could be portrayed thus:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.90 of 1996 before the learned
\nAdditional District Munsif, Tirunelveli, airing the grievance, in demanding a
\nsum of Rs.88,530\/- (Rupees eighty eight thousand five hundred and thirty only)
\nvide communication dated 22.09.1992 in reference No.AO\/R\/HTS\/A2\/F 12 D\/409\/92 by
\nthe defendant Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. The defendant Tamil Nadu Electricity Board committed error in assuming
\nand presuming as though there were defects in the electric meter and in simply
\nassessing the probable consumption charges in a sum of Rs.88,530\/- (Rupees
\neighty eight thousand five hundred and thirty only), and that too without even
\nadhering to the procedures contemplated in the Electricity Act, Rules and other
\ninstructions thereunder relating to collection of the electricity charges.
\nHence, the plaintiff filed the suit for the following reliefs:\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) Declaring that the demand of Rs.88,530\/- by the defendant in his
\nletter dated 19.01.1993 in reference No. AO\/R\/HTS\/A2\/F 12 D\/10\/93 is illegal;
\nand\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) consequentially issuing permanent injunction restraining the defendant
\nhis men, servants, agents, subordinates, Successors-in-Office etc. from in any
\nmanner either disconnecting the HT SC No.12 on the basis of the illegal demand
\nor collecting the said amount of Rs.88,530\/-“.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.  Impugning and challenging, denying and refuting the
\nallegations\/averments in the plaint, the defendant Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
\nfiled the written statement; the gist and kernel of it would run thus:
\n\tThe plaintiff is enjoying HT SC No.12 with a sanctioned maximum demand of
\n500 KVA relating to the plaintiff’s limestone factory.  During 7\/90 and 8\/90
\n(i.e.) while taking meter readings for the consumption recorded for board side
\nmeter on 26.07.1990 and 27.08.1990, it was noticed that the metering set for
\nrecording maximum demand (in KVA) was over shoot by failure of mechanism and
\ntherefore the meter was disconnected on 30.08.1990 from service for
\nrectification.  A healthy meter was also fixed on 11.09.1990 and average billing
\nwas recommended by the Board Technical officers for the meter defect period from
\n26.07.1990 to 11.09.1990.  Such removal of the defective meter and replacement
\nwere done with the knowledge of the consumer i.e., the plaintiff herein.  One
\nThiru.S.Venkatakrishnan, was the authorised signatory of the plaintiff, who knew
\nabout it also.  The consumer side meter also was found defective during the
\ncourse of annual test on 11.09.1990, but it was not replaced so far.  The Tamil
\nNadu Electricity Board complied with the procedures as per the agreement between
\nthe consumer and the Electricity Board and also as per the rules and regulations
\ngoverning the same.  The suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable under
\nthe law.  Accordingly, the defendant Tamil Nadu Electricity Board prayed for the
\ndismissal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. The trial Court framed the relevant issues and during trial, on the
\nside of the plaintiff,  P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.22 were marked.  On
\nthe side of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.7 were marked.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. The trial Court ultimately decreed the suit.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. Challenging the Judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendant
\nTamil Nadu Electricity Board preferred the first appeal, whereupon the first
\nappellate Court confirmed the Judgment and decree of the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.  Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment and decree of
\nboth the Courts below, the defendant Electricity Board filed this second appeal
\non the following main grounds among others:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Courts below committed error in giving a finding that the civil Court
\nhad jurisdiction to entertain the suit.  They committed error in holding that
\nnotice under Rule 223 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Manual was mandatory.
\nThe Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Manual has no statutory force and it is
\nintended only to cover the administrative, financial and accounting procedure
\nconcerning the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.  Ex.B5 is the agreement between the
\nplaintiff and the defendant and it is having binding force on the plaintiff.
\nThe lower appellate Court fell into error in deciding that simply because there
\nwas fall in the consumption of electricity by the plaintiff, the defendant
\njumped to wrong assessment.  Both the Courts below failed to consider that as
\nper Section 26(6) of the Act, arbitration alone is contemplated and the civil
\nCourt’s jurisdiction is ousted.  Both the Courts below proceeded on the
\nassumption as though the civil Court could decide on the contentious issues
\nrelating to billing and accordingly decreed the suit.  As per Section 49 of the
\nElectricity Supply Act 1948, Ex.B5 emerged, but the said legal position was not
\nconsidered in proper prospective by the lower Courts. Accordingly, the defendant
\nTamil Nadu Electricity Board prayed for setting aside the Judgments and decrees
\nof the both the Courts below and for dismissing the original suit.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. The following substantial questions of law were framed by my learned
\nPredecessor at the time of admitting this second appeal:
\n\t“1. Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that the notice under
\nRule 223 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Manual is mandatory?\n<\/p>\n
\t2. Whether the Courts below are correct in decreeing the suit by
\noverlooking the fact that by Ex.B5 agreement the Plaintiff has undertaken to
\ncomply with all the requirements of the Indian electricity Act and the terms and
\nconditions mentioned in Ex.B5, which are statutory in character?\n<\/p>\n
\t3. Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that Civil Court has
\njurisdiction to entertain the suit especially in the wake of Sec.26(6) of the
\nAct which provides for compulsory arbitration and impliedly ousting the
\njurisdiction of the civil Court?”\n<\/p>\n
\t11. The substantial questions of law are taken together for discussion as
\nthey are interlinked with one another.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. The learned counsel for the appellant\/ defendant Tamil Nadu
\nElectricity Board by drawing the attention of this Court to the Judgments and
\ndecrees of the Courts below would argue that both the Courts below assumed as
\nthough civil Court has got jurisdiction to look into the factual aspects of the
\nmatter and given their verdict on the contentious issues relating to assessment
\nof electric charges that has arisen between the plaintiff and defendant.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. Citing the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pubjab State
\nElectricity Board and another v. Ashwani Kumar reported in (1997)5 Supreme Court
\nCases 120, the learned counsel for the appellant\/defendant Tamil Nadu
\nElectricity Board would pray for setting aside the Judgments and decrees of both
\nthe Courts below and consequently for dismissing the original suit on the ground
\nthat the civil Court has got no jurisdiction in this matter and that it is for
\nthe plaintiff to approach the appropriate authority to get its grievance
\nredressed.  It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant
\nthat without exhausting the remedies contemplated under the Electricity Act and
\nthe relevant terms and conditions formulated under the Act, the plaintiff had
\nnot right to file the suit.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. In his refutory arguments, the learned counsel for the
\nrespondent\/plaintiff would cite the following decisions:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) Dhulabhai etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another reported in AIR
\n1969 Supreme Court 78.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) M.P. Electricity Board, Jabalpur v. M\/s.Vijaya Tiber Co.,<\/a> reported in
\nAIR 1997 Supreme Court 2364.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. It is therefore, just and necessary to look into the issue as to
\nwhether the civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit at all.  This is
\na pure question of law and necessarily it has to be decided by this Court in
\nthis second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. The learned counsel for the respondent\/ plaintiff by placing reliance
\non the cited decisions supra would develop his arguments to the effect that
\nsimply because some procedures are contemplated under the Electricity Act and
\nRules and even under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Act,
\n1978 (Act No.29 of 1978), the civil Court jurisdiction is not barred and that
\nboth the Courts below gave a categorical finding that the defendant was not
\njustified in ignoring the mandatory provisions as contemplated under Rule 223 of
\nthe Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Manual.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. Whereas the learned counsel for the appellant defendant Tamil Nadu
\nElectricity Board would submit that the ratio decidendi in the Hon’ble Apex
\nCourt in Ashwani Kumar case cited supra is actually to be applied in this case,
\nwhereas the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondent\/ plaintiff
\nwould not apply so far this case on hand is concerned.  I could see considerable
\nforce in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant\/defendant
\nthat before applying a particular decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the ratio
\ndecidendi in it should be considered.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashwani Kumar case is
\nrelating to the Electricity Act itself.  An excerpt from it would run thus:
\n\t“8. The question then arises whether the civil court would be justified in
\nentertaining the suit and issue injunction as prayed for? It is true, as
\ncontended by Shri Goyal, learned Senior Counsel, that the objections were raised
\nin the written statement as to the maintainability of the suit but the same were
\ngiven up. Section 9 of the CPC provides that the civil court shall try all suits
\nof civil nature, subject to pecuniary jurisdiction, unless their cognizance is
\nexpressly or by necessary implication barred. Such suit would not be
\nmaintainable. It is true that ordinarily, the civil court has jurisdiction to go
\ninto and try the disputed questions of civil nature, where the fundamental
\nfairness of procedure has been violated. The statutory circulars adumbrated
\nabove do indicate that a fundamental fairness of the procedure has been
\nprescribed in the rules and is being followed. By necessary implication, the
\ncognizance of the civil cause has been excluded. As a consequence, the civil
\ncourt shall not be justified in entertaining this suit and giving the
\ndeclaration without directing the party to avail of the remedy provided under
\nthe Indian Electricity Act and the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act and the
\nInstructions issued by the Board in that behalf from time to time as stated
\nabove.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. Shri Goyal has contended that the authorities do not hear the parties,
\nnor give a reasoned order. Therefore, the parties cannot be precluded to avail
\nof the remedy of a suit. We cannot accept such a broad and generalised
\nproposition. When the provision for appeal by way of review has been provided by
\nthe statutory instructions, and the parties are directed to avail of the remedy,
\nthe authorities are enjoined to consider all the objections raised by the
\nconsumer and to pass, after consideration, the reasoned order in that behalf, so
\nthat the aggrieved consumer, if not satisfied with the order passed by the
\nBoard\/appellate authority, can avail of the remedy available under Article 226
\nof the Constitution. Therefore, by necessary implication, the appropriate
\ncompetent authority should hear the parties, consider their objections and pass
\nthe reasoned order, either accepting or negativing the claim. Of course it is
\nnot like a judgment of a civil court. It is then contended that the respondent
\nhas been subjected to pay huge amount of bill in a short period; hence, it is a
\ncase for interference . We find no force in the contention. May be that due to
\nthe advice given by the counsel, the respondent obviously has availed of the
\nremedy of the suit, instead of departmental appeal. In our view, by necessary
\nimplication the suit is not maintainable. Therefore, the respondent is at
\nliberty to avail the remedy of appeal within six weeks from today and raise the
\nfactual objections before the Board and the Board\/appellate authority would
\nconsider and dispose of them, as indicated earlier, on merits.”\n<\/p>\n
\t20. Whereas the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the
\nrespondent\/plaintiff are positing to the general power of the civil Court to
\nentertain suits by invoking Section 9 of C.P.C., whereas the Hon’ble Apex Court
\nin Ashwani Kumar case has clearly held that when the Electricity Board or
\nElectricity Authority demands electricity charges, by stating that there was
\nwrong billing due to the defect in the electricity meter concerned, the consumer
\nhas to exhause his remedy by approaching the appropriate authorities and
\nstraight away the aggrieved party viz., the consumer cannot file a civil suit.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. Here, the background facts have to be seen.  Admittedly and
\nindubitably the grievance of the plaintiff is that the electricity board
\nunilaterally adjudged as though there were defects in the electric meter and
\nthat too without informing the consumer concerned the plaintiff, simply
\narbitrarily and unilaterally arrived at the imaginary figure, so to say,
\nRs.88,530\/- (Rupees eighty eight thousand five hundred and thirty only) as
\narrears.  At this juncture, I would like to highlight that the very institution
\nof the suit itself is bad in law and both the Courts below without applying
\ntheir mind on the maintainability of the suit, simply jumped to the conclusion
\nas though the mandatory provision under Section 223 of the Tamil Nadu
\nElectricity Board Manual has not been complied with.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. The learned counsel for the appellant\/ defendant Tamil Nadu
\nElectricity Board read out the relevant provisions of Clauses 17.10, 17.11,
\n17.12 and 17.13 in the Terms and Conditions of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, and
\nit is extracted here under for ready reference:\n<\/p>\n
\t“17.10: Where supply to the consumer is given without a meter or where the
\nmeter fixed is found defective or to have ceased to function and no theft of
\nenergy or violation is suspected, the quantity of electricity supplied during
\nthe period when the meter was not installed or the meter installed was
\ndefective, will be assessed as mentioned hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe quantity of electricity, supplied during the period in question will
\nbe determined by taking the average of the electricity supplied during the
\npreceding four months in respect of High Tension Service connections and two
\nassessment period (four months) in respect of Low Tension service connections,
\nprovided that the conditions in regard to use of electricity during the said
\nfour months\/two assessment period were not different from those which prevailed
\nduring the period in question.  In respect of High Tension service connections,
\nwhere the meter fixed for measuring the Maximum Demand becomes defective, the
\nMaximum Demand will be assessed by computation on the basis of the average of
\nthe recorded demand during the previous four months.\n<\/p>\n
\tWhere the meter becomes defective immediately after the service connection
\nis effected, the quantum of electricity supplied during the period in question
\nis to be determined by taking the average of the electricity supplied during the
\nsucceeding two assessment period, provided the conditions in regard to the use
\nof electricity in respect of such Low Tension service connections are not
\ndifferent.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.11: If the conditions in regard to use of electricity during the two
\nperiods as mentioned above were different, assessment will be made on the basis
\nof any consecutive four months period during the preceding twelve months when
\nthe conditions of working were similar to those in the period covered by the
\nbilling.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.12: Where it is not possible to select a set of four months, the
\nquantity of electricity supplied will be assessed by the Assistant Executive
\nEngineer in the case of Low Tension service connections and by the Executive
\nEngineer in the case of High Tension service connections on the basis of the
\nconnected load and the hours of usage of electricity by the consumer.
\n\t17.13: In case the consumer does not agree with the assessment made by the
\nAssistant Executive Engineer\/Executive Engineer, the matter may be referred to
\nthe Executive Engineer\/Superintending Engineer whose decision shall be final and
\nbinding on the consumer”.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. A mere reading of those paras extracted supra would indicate that
\nwhenever there is any defect noted in the electric meter, the authority
\nconcerned has got the right to proceed under those clauses.  Clause 17.13 would
\ncontemplate referring of the matter to the Assistant Executive Engineer\/
\nExecutive Engineer of the Electricity Board and it is clear that two tier system
\nis contemplated.  If the consumer is aggrieved by the procedures to be adopted
\nby the Board official relating to the defective meter then he could get the
\nmatter referred to the the Assistant Executive Engineer\/ Executive Engineer for
\ngetting it decided.  Even thereafter if he is not satisfied, he could very well
\napproach the Superintending Engineer.  As such there are inbuilt safeguards
\nprescribed as above.  Oblivious of clause 17.10 to 17.13, the suit was filed
\nerroneously by the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
\t24.  The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashwani Kumar case  has held that without
\nexercising such remedies a suit shall not be filed.  The learned counsel for the
\nrespondent\/plaintiff would cite Section 5 of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
\n(Recovery of Dues) Act, 1978 (Act No.29 of 1978).  I would like to point out
\nthat reading of Section 5 of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues)
\nAct, 1978 (Act No.29 of 1978) in isolation would not in any way serve the
\npurpose.  Necessarily Sections 3 and 4 Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Recovery of
\nDues) Act, 1978 (Act No.29 of 1978) also should be read conjunctively  and hence
\nSections 3, 4 and 5 of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1978
\n(Act No.29 of 1978) are extracted here under for ready reference:
\n\t“3. Bills to state the date by which payment are to be made and
\nconsequences of non-payment.- (1) Every bill for dues payable to the Board by a
\ndebtor shall be in the form prescribed by the Board and shall specify
\nconspicuously the date by which such dues are to be paid and shall be served in
\nsuch manner as may be prescribed by rules.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2)(a) If a debtor disputes his liability to pay the whole or part of the
\ndues specified in the bill referred to in sub-section (1), he may, within such
\ntime as may be prescribed, prefer an appeal to the appellate authority to be
\nspecified by the Board.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) The appellate authority shall, while deciding the appeal, follow such
\nprocedure as may be prescribed by rules.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) The dues as determined by the appellate authority in the case of an
\nappeal under this sub-section, shall be paid by such date as may be specified by
\nthe appellate authority.\n<\/p>\n
\t(3) If the dues as mentioned in the bill under sub-section (1), are not
\npaid by the date specified in the bill, and in the case of an appeal under sub-
\nsection (2), the dues as determined by the appellate authority are not paid by
\nthe date specified by such authority, the debtor shall be liable to pay, in
\naddition thereto such penalty which may be specified by the Board, and such dues
\nand penalty shall be recoverable along with the costs incurred in making such
\nrecovery, in the manner hereinafter laid down in this Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. Notice of demand for dues and penalty not paid.- If the dues as
\nmentioned in the bill under sub-section (1) of Section 3 are not paid by the
\ndate specified in the bill and in the case of an appeal under sub-section (2) of
\nSection 3, the dues as determined by the appellate authority are not paid by the
\ndate specified by such authority, the prescribed authority may at any time serve
\nor cause to be served upon him a notice of demand in the prescribed form,
\nstating the name of the debtor, the amount payable by him on account of the
\nvarious dues, penalty and the costs of recovery.\n<\/p>\n
\tExplanation.- The sending of the notice by registered post shall be deemed
\nto be sufficient service on the person concerned.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. Suit to challenge liability to payment.- Where a notice of demand has
\nbeen served on, the debtor or his authorised agent under Section 4, he may, if
\nhe denies his liability to pay the dues, penalty or cost or any part of any of
\nthem, institute a suit within three months from the date of service of notice of
\ndemand, after depositing with the prescribed authority the aggregate amount
\nspecified in the notice of demand under protest in writing that he is not liable
\nto pay the same.  Subject to the result of such suit, the notice of demand shall
\nbe conclusive proof of the various dues, penalty and costs mentioned therein”.\n<\/p>\n
\t25. A cumulative and conjoint reading of those three Sections of Tamil
\nNadu Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1978 (Act No.29 of 1978) would
\namply make the point clear that before filing a civil suit, invoking Section 5
\nof the said act, the consumer should exhaust his remedy contemplated under
\nSections 3 and 4 of the said Act.  But in this case, it was not done so.  It is
\ntherefore clear that both the Courts below fell into error in upholding the
\nplaintiff’s case.\n<\/p>\n
\t26. One other important feature also should be noted.  Both the Courts
\nbelow even though held that notice was not issued under Rule 223 of the Tamil
\nNadu Electricity Board Manual and that the defendant resorted to recover the
\ndues, nonetheless they failed to direct the authority to resort to proper
\naction.  Necessarily if there is any defect in the procedures followed, the
\nCourt should direct them to adhere the proper course.  But in this case, what
\nhad happened is that the lower Courts blindly agreed with the plaintiff’s case
\nand and decreed the suit.  On that aspect also both the Courts below were wrong
\nin their approach.\n<\/p>\n
\t27. In this factual matrix, I would like to observe that it is open for
\nthe plaintiff to approach the appropriate authority under the aforesaid
\nprovisions, excluding the time taken for prosecuting the matter before the
\nCourts and the Electricity Board Authorities also shall do well to see that
\nwithout raising any limitation point shall consider the matter as per law.
\nAccordingly, the Substantial Question of law No.1 is decided to the effect that
\nboth the Courts below were not justified in their approach by holding that
\nnotice under Rule 223 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Manual, was mandatory
\neven though it is not so in the wake of other statutory safeguards.  The
\nSubstantial Question of law No.2 is decided to the effect that both the Courts
\nbelow have not properly considered Ex.B5 in the light of the terms and
\nconditions, which were formulated under Section 49 of Electricity supply Act.
\nThe Substantial Question of Law No.3 is decided to the effect that the civil
\nCourt has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of Clauses 17.10, 17.11,
\n17.12 and 17.13 of the Terms and Conditions of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and
\nSections 3, 4 and 5 of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1978
\n(Act No.29 of 1978).\n<\/p>\n
\t28. With the above observations, the second appeal is disposed of.  In the
\nfacts and circumstances of this case, there is no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
smn<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1. The Principal District Judge,
\n   Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Additional District Munsif,
\n   Tirunelveli<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs M\/S.Krishna Mines on 11 February, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11\/02\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA S.A.No.387 of 2000 Tamil Nadu Electricity Board through its Superintending Engineer, Tirunelveli Electricity System, Tirunelveli – 627 011 having its office at Maharajanagar, Tirunelveli – […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-129944","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nTamil Nadu Electricity Board vs M\/S.Krishna Mines on 11 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-ms-krishna-mines-on-11-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs M\/S.Krishna Mines on 11 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-ms-krishna-mines-on-11-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-06T09:26:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-ms-krishna-mines-on-11-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-ms-krishna-mines-on-11-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs M\\\/S.Krishna Mines on 11 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-06T09:26:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-ms-krishna-mines-on-11-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3856,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-ms-krishna-mines-on-11-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-ms-krishna-mines-on-11-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-ms-krishna-mines-on-11-february-2008\",\"name\":\"Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs M\\\/S.Krishna Mines on 11 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-06T09:26:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-ms-krishna-mines-on-11-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-ms-krishna-mines-on-11-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-ms-krishna-mines-on-11-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs M\\\/S.Krishna Mines on 11 February, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs M\/S.Krishna Mines on 11 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-ms-krishna-mines-on-11-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs M\/S.Krishna Mines on 11 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-ms-krishna-mines-on-11-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-06T09:26:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-ms-krishna-mines-on-11-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-ms-krishna-mines-on-11-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs M\/S.Krishna Mines on 11 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-06T09:26:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-ms-krishna-mines-on-11-february-2008"},"wordCount":3856,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-ms-krishna-mines-on-11-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-ms-krishna-mines-on-11-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-ms-krishna-mines-on-11-february-2008","name":"Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs M\/S.Krishna Mines on 11 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-06T09:26:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-ms-krishna-mines-on-11-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-ms-krishna-mines-on-11-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-vs-ms-krishna-mines-on-11-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs M\/S.Krishna Mines on 11 February, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129944","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=129944"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129944\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=129944"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=129944"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=129944"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}