{"id":14155,"date":"2004-02-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-02-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathi-ammal-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-13-february-2004"},"modified":"2015-08-16T06:59:51","modified_gmt":"2015-08-16T01:29:51","slug":"padmavathi-ammal-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-13-february-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathi-ammal-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-13-february-2004","title":{"rendered":"Padmavathi Ammal vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 13 February, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Padmavathi Ammal vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 13 February, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 13\/02\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ\n\nSECOND APPEAL No.758 OF 1993\n\nPadmavathi Ammal                                       ... Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\n  by its Superintending Engineer,\n  Cuddalore,\n  South Arcot District.\n\n2.The Assistant Divisional Engineer,\n  Operation and Maintenance,\n  Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\n  Vadalur,\n  South Arcot District.                         ... Respondents\n\n        Second Appeal preferred  under  Section  100  of  the  Code  of  Civil\nProcedure for the relief as stated therein.\n\nFor appellant  :  Mr.K.Raghunathan\n\nFor respondents:  Mr.S.Rajeswaran\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
                This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree
\ndated 12.4.1993 rendered in A.S.No.231 of 1992 by  the  Court  of  Subordinate
\nJudge,  Cuddalore  thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 2 4.1.1992
\nrendered in O.S.No.229 of 1989 by the Court of District Munsif, Cuddalore.\n<\/p>\n
                2.  Tracing the history of the above second appeal  coming  to
\nbe  preferred,  it  comes  to be known that the appellant herein has filed the
\nsuit in O.S.No.229 of 1989 on the  file  of  the  Court  of  District  Munsif,
\nCuddalore  as against the respondents\/The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and its
\nofficials for declaration to the effect that the order dated 10.3.1989 made in
\nNo.4648\/88-89 by the respondents is deliberate and contrary  to  law  and  the
\nsame  is not legally valid and for permanent injunction from disconnecting the
\nService Connection No.216 and for costs.\n<\/p>\n
                3.   In  the plaint, the appellant\/plaintiff would submit that
\nhe is running a rice mill viz.  Vetrivel Rice  Mills  for  which  the  service
\nconnection  number  is  216  and the power supply was given by the respondents
\nwith provision for a 20 H.P.   Motor;  that  the  Inspection  Officer  of  the
\nrespondents,  having  inspected the rice mill on 10.3.1989, submitted a report
\nstating thereby that instead of making use of a 20 H.P.  Motor, the  plaintiff
\nmade use of a 30 H.P.  Motor and hence required the plaintiff to pay a penalty
\nof  Rs.14,970\/= within fifteen days, lest they would cut-off the power supply,
\nas per the notice issued by the second defendant.\n<\/p>\n
                4.  The plaintiff, therefore, has averred that they  have  not
\nmade use  of  a  30 H.P.  Motor and even if it is so, for the consumption they
\nhave  been  paying  the  monthly  rental  to  the  respondent  Board  properly
\naccounting  for the same in the meter without any default; that the notice has
\nbeen issued contrary to the law and justice, misusing the  powers  granted  to
\nthe  respondents;  that  the charges are imaginary and false and they have not
\nbeen made on proper inspection of the site and therefore they need not have to
\npay the penalty as per the notice issued dated 10.3.1989 and  hence  the  suit
\nseeking the relief extracted supra.\n<\/p>\n
                5.   In  the  written  statement  filed,  the defendants would
\nsubmit that all the true facts and circumstances have not been  brought  forth
\nin  the  plaint; that on 23.1.1985, the Electricity Board Squad for Prevention
\nof Theft of Energy inspected S.C.No.216 and found out that instead  of  making
\nuse of the 20 H.P.  Motor, the plaintiff made use of 30 H.P.  motor thus using
\nan additional  power  of  10 H.P.  and therefore required the plaintiff to pay
\nthe penal assessment of Rs.4,558\/= within 15 days after  the  receipt  of  the
\nnotice  but  instead, the plaintiff filed a writ petition in the High Court in
\nW.P.No.8409 of 1985 wherein it was ordered that the plaintiff should  pay  the
\nsum  of Rs.2,279\/= in favour of the Electricity Board and get the power supply
\nand sending a show-cause notice, the matter must be ultimately decided by  the
\nElectricity  Board;  that  they  sent  the  show-cause  notice dated 31.1.1986
\nrequiring the plaintiff to reply within thirty days; that  the  plaintiff  did
\nnot at all give any reply and only on 4.10.1986, the plaintiff having remitted
\nthe  balance  sum  of  Rs.1,982\/=  from  the  penal  assessment kept quite and
\ncontinued to make use of the 30  H.P.    motor;  that  the  second  defendant,
\ntherefore,  sent  a  communication dated 10.3.1989 to pay a sum of Rs.14,970\/=
\nand hence the plaintiff has come forward to file  the  above  suit;  that  the
\ninspection  of  the  meter  and  the  spot had been conducted meticulously and
\nwithout complying with the demand notice, the plaintiff has  come  forward  to
\nfile the  above  suit  falsely.  On such averments, the defendants\/respondents
\nwould pray to dismiss the above suit with costs.\n<\/p>\n
                6.  The trial Court, based on the above pleadings, would frame
\nthe following issues for determination of all  the  questions  raised  in  the
\nwhole of the suit viz.:\n<\/p>\n
1.Whether the suit is barred by the doctrine of lapse?\n<\/p>\n
2.whether it is true that the plaintiff misused the power?\n<\/p>\n
3.Whether, in this case, the Court Fee has not been properly paid?\n<\/p>\n
4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration?  and\n<\/p>\n
5.What relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to?\n<\/p>\n
                7.  The trial Court,  then  would  conduct  a  thorough  trial
\nwherein  on  the  part  of  the  plaintiff  and the defendant, they would each
\nexamine one witness as P.W.1 and D.W.1 respectively for oral evidence  and  on
\nbehalf  of the plaintiff, she would m ument as Ex.A.1 for documentary evidence
\nand 13 documents would be marked  as  Exs.B.1  to  B.1  3  on  behalf  of  the
\ndefendants.   Thereupon, the trial Court having had its own discussions on the
\nfacts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  issue-wise,  would  arrive  at  easy
\nconclusions  deciding issues No.1 and 2 against the plaintiff and in favour of
\nthe defendants and regarding the third issue framed pertaining  to  the  Court
\nFee,  the  trial  Court would conclude that proper Court Fee has been paid and
\nfor the fourth issue, the trial Court would conclude that the plaintiff is not
\nentitled to get the relief of declaration, thus ultimately answering  the  5th
\nissue  to  the  effect that the plaintiff is not at all entitled to any relief
\nsought for and would dismiss the suit.\n<\/p>\n
                8.  So far as the appreciation of evidence by the trial  Court
\nto  arrive  at the above conclusion is concerned, regarding the oral evidence,
\nthough both the witnesses would adhere to the pleadings of the  plaintiff  and
\nthe  defendants  respectively,  it  would  be laid emphasis on the part of the
\ndefendants that the plaintiff was making use of a 30 HP motor even though  she
\nis  permitted  to  use  only a 20 HP motor and hence based on Ex.B.1 report, a
\nnotice in Ex.B.2 dated 3.5.1985 followed by Exs.B.8 and  B.9  was  issued  and
\nultimately  sending  Ex.B.13 for removal of the 30 HP motor, but the plaintiff
\ndid not at all come forward to do the same, but only filed the above suit  and
\nhence  the  trial  Court  factually  would  arrive  at the conclusion that the
\nplaintiff is not entitled to any relief sought for thus dismissing the suit.\n<\/p>\n
                9.  On appeal by the plaintiff, the first appellate Court, the
\nCourt  of  Subordinate  Judge,  Cuddalore  also  would  assess  the  facts and
\ncircumstances of the case as pleaded before the trial Court  and  framing  its
\nown points  for  consideration viz.  (1) whether the appellant was entitled to
\nthe declaration and permanent injunction and (2) whether the appeal is  liable
\nto be allowed, would have its own dissection of the facts and circumstances of
\nthe  case  in the light of the materials placed on record and would ultimately
\nconcur with the trial Court thus dismissing the appeal with costs  and  it  is
\nagainst  these  concurrent judgments rendered by the trial Court and the first
\nappellate Court as well, the plaintiff in the suit has come forward to  prefer
\nthe  above  second  appeal  on certain grounds brought forth in the grounds of
\nappeal and this Court admitted the same for  determination  of  the  following
\nsubstantial questions of law:\n<\/p>\n
1.The  Courts  below  overlooked  that as per Board Proceedings M.S.No.78 0 an
\ninitial assessment notice has  to  be  issued  thus  giving  the  consumer  an
\nopportunity  and only thereafter a final assessment is to be made which in the
\ninstant case Ex.A.1 is a final notice which is thus contrary to the  procedure
\nlaid down in the Board proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
2.The  courts below erred in not adverting to the factum of noncompliance with
\nthe procedure before the issuance of Ex.A.1 which is a final order.\n<\/p>\n
                10.  During arguments, the learned counsel for  the  appellant
\nhaving  assessed the facts pleaded on both sides would raise a legal point for
\nproper consideration of this Court that in the circumstances of the case,  the
\nauthorities concerned  i.e.    the  respondents  should  have  had  an initial
\nassessment as per the Board’s proceedings in M.S.No.780 and notice  issued  to
\nthe  plaintiff  with  an  opportunity  to be heard and only thereafter a final
\nassessment has to be made, which in the instant case has  not  been  done  and
\nEx.A.1 being the final notice, is contrary to the proceedings laid down in the
\nBoard’s  proceeding  and  as  per  Clause  37,  Point  6.01  of  the Terms and
\nConditions  of  Supply  of  Electricity  of  Tamil  Nadu   Electricity   Board
\n(hereinafter referred to as the Terms and Conditions).\n<\/p>\n
                11.   On  the part of the respondents also, though the learned
\ncounsel representing them, on facts, would adhere to the merit of the case  as
\nit  has  been  decided  by the Courts below, he has no say regarding the legal
\nquestion raised by the learned counsel for the  appellant  and  hence  it  has
\nbecome incumbent on the part of this Court to focus its attention on the legal
\nquestion  raised by the appellant under Clause 37, Point 6.01 of the Terms and
\nConditions si nce it is relevant for consideration the said Point is extracted
\nhereunder:\n<\/p>\n
“On detection of violation, the officer authorised to issue show cause  notice
\nas  per  Clause 10 of this Schedule will issue a notice to the consumer asking
\nhim to remove the violation within twenty-four hours or seven days as the case
\nmay be, failing which the supply will be disconnected and to  show  cause  why
\nthe  compensation  charges  should  not  be  levied  for  having committed the
\nviolation.  Reply to show cause notice shall be sent by  the  consumer  within
\nseven days from the date of receipt of notice.”\n<\/p>\n
                12.   In  consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to
\nthe materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for  both,
\nit  has  become  necessary on the part of this Court to decide the question of
\nlaw raised on the part of the appellant as it has been reduced into the  first
\nsubstantial question of law that as per the Board Proceedings in M.S.No.780 an
\ninitial  assessment  notice  has  to  be  issued  thus  giving the consumer an
\nopportunity to be heard and only thereafter a final assessment is to  be  made
\nwhich  in the instant case has been done under Ex.A.1 and this procedure being
\nmandatory and having not been adopted by the  Electricity  Board  authorities,
\nthe respondents herein, it would be pointed out that the judgments and decrees
\npassed  by  both  the Courts below, for non-consideration of this material and
\nprocedural aspect get only vitiated in law.\n<\/p>\n
                13.  Though the above question raised  is  a  procedural  one,
\nstill, since it is related to the opportunity that is initially to be afforded
\nto  the  consumer,  no  mention  need be necessary that non-issuance of such a
\nnotice on initial assessment seeking the explanation of the consumer would  be
\nopposed to the high principles of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n
                14.   Since  it  is,  though  not  openly admitted, patent and
\nglaringly visible that no such  initial  assessment  notice  has  been  issued
\ngiving  the plaintiff an opportunity to be heard prior to resorting to pas the
\nfinal assessment order as it could be seen in Ex.A.1 in the case in  hand  and
\nthe  same being contrary to the procedures laid down by law, it has to be held
\nthat the factum of non-compliance of this legal procedure would only pave  the
\nway  for  the  final  assessment  notice  issued  in  the  second respondent’s
\nproceeding No.4648\/88-89 dated 10.3.1989 to get vitiated in law.\n<\/p>\n
                15.  Since the case of the respondent constituted against  the
\nappellants  fails on account of the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions
\nof law as brought forth above, the case constructed on facts and circumstances
\nbefore both the Courts below and the materials made available and  appreciated
\nby the Courts below need not be discussed much less since the above proceeding
\nbeing  the  second appeal wherein only substantial questions of law have to be
\nanswered on the background of the facts and circumstances and evidence.  Since
\nboth the above substantial questions of law framed have to be answered only in
\nfavour of the appellant and against the respondents case, this Court is of the
\nfirm view that the fact situation need not have to be gone into, to any extent
\nand the legal question raised on the part  of  the  plaintiff,  the  appellant
\nherein,  since  touches  the  very  root  of  the principle based on which the
\nedifice has to be built and for non-compliance of  the  same,  the  proceeding
\ninitiated  by  the  respondents against the appellant as per their order dated
\n10.3.1989 made  in  No.4648\/88-89  would  only  get  vitiated  and  hence  the
\njudgments rendered by both the Courts below would only become liable to be set
\naside and hence the following judgment:\n<\/p>\n
In result,\n<\/p>\n
(i)the above second appeal succeeds and the same is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)the  judgment and decree dated 12.4.1993 rendered in A.S.No.231 of 1992 by
\nthe Court of Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore and the judgment  and  decree  dated
\n24.1.1992  rendered  in  O.S.No.229  of  1989 by the Court of District Munsif,
\nCuddalore are hereby set aside.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)The suit in O.S.No.229 of 1989 on the  file  of  the  Court  of  District
\nMunsif, Cuddalore stands decreed as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n
        However,  in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as
\nto costs.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes
\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n
Rao<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.The Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore\n<\/p>\n
2.The District Munsif, Cuddalore.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Padmavathi Ammal vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 13 February, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13\/02\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ SECOND APPEAL No.758 OF 1993 Padmavathi Ammal … Appellant -Vs- 1.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, by its Superintending Engineer, Cuddalore, South Arcot District. 2.The Assistant […]<\/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-14155","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPadmavathi Ammal vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 13 February, 2004 - 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\/padmavathi-ammal-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-13-february-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Padmavathi Ammal vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 13 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathi-ammal-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-13-february-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-16T01:29:51+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathi-ammal-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-13-february-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathi-ammal-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-13-february-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Padmavathi Ammal vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 13 February, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-16T01:29:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathi-ammal-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-13-february-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2228,\"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\\\/padmavathi-ammal-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-13-february-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathi-ammal-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-13-february-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathi-ammal-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-13-february-2004\",\"name\":\"Padmavathi Ammal vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 13 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-16T01:29:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathi-ammal-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-13-february-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathi-ammal-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-13-february-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathi-ammal-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-13-february-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Padmavathi Ammal vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 13 February, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Padmavathi Ammal vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 13 February, 2004 - 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\/padmavathi-ammal-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-13-february-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Padmavathi Ammal vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 13 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathi-ammal-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-13-february-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-16T01:29:51+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathi-ammal-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-13-february-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathi-ammal-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-13-february-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Padmavathi Ammal vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 13 February, 2004","datePublished":"2004-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-16T01:29:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathi-ammal-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-13-february-2004"},"wordCount":2228,"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\/padmavathi-ammal-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-13-february-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathi-ammal-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-13-february-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathi-ammal-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-13-february-2004","name":"Padmavathi Ammal vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 13 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-16T01:29:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathi-ammal-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-13-february-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathi-ammal-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-13-february-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathi-ammal-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-13-february-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Padmavathi Ammal vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 13 February, 2004"}]},{"@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\/14155","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=14155"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14155\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14155"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14155"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14155"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}