{"id":177227,"date":"1996-04-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-04-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-anr-vs-n-raju-reddiar-anr-on-24-april-1996"},"modified":"2016-06-07T10:43:46","modified_gmt":"2016-06-07T05:13:46","slug":"tamil-nadu-electricity-board-anr-vs-n-raju-reddiar-anr-on-24-april-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-anr-vs-n-raju-reddiar-anr-on-24-april-1996","title":{"rendered":"Tamil Nadu Electricity Board &amp; Anr vs N. Raju Reddiar &amp; Anr on 24 April, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Tamil Nadu Electricity Board &amp; Anr vs N. Raju Reddiar &amp; Anr on 24 April, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 2025, \t\t  1996 SCC  (4) 551<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: G Pattanaik<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: G.B. Pattanaik (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nTAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD &amp; ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nN. RAJU REDDIAR &amp; ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t24\/04\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nG.B. PATTANAIK (J)\nBENCH:\nG.B. PATTANAIK (J)\nRAMASWAMY, K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 AIR 2025\t\t  1996 SCC  (4) 551\n JT 1996 (6)\t14\t  1996 SCALE  (4)180\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nPATTANAIK. J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>      This  appeal by  special leave is directed against the<br \/>\nJudgment of  the Division  Bench of  the Madras\t High  Court<br \/>\ndated 6.9.1995 in O.S.A. No. 112 of 1987. The plaintiffs who<br \/>\nare the\t respondents in\t this appeal  filed the\t suit on the<br \/>\noriginal side of the High Court for recovery of a sum of Rs.<br \/>\n46,08,820\/- together  with interest at 18% per annum. It was<br \/>\nalleged in the plaint that the defendants who are appellants<br \/>\nin this\t appeal invited\t tenders for  transportation of iron<br \/>\nand  steel  materials  including  unloading,  weighment\t and<br \/>\nstocking from  various stockyards  of the  suppliers to\t the<br \/>\ndestination stores  during the period 1.9.1978 to 31.8.1979.<br \/>\nIn pursuance  of the  aforesaid advertisement  the Plaintiff<br \/>\nNo. 1  submitted his  tender on\t 13.7 .1978  and along\twith<br \/>\ntender submitted  a letter  was also enclosed. This offer of<br \/>\nthe plaintiff  was accepted  and an  agreement\twas  entered<br \/>\ninto.  In   accordance\twith  the  agreement  the  plaintiff<br \/>\nfurnished a  bank  guarantee  and  deposited  the  necessary<br \/>\nearnest\t money\tand  commenced\tthe  work  of  transport  of<br \/>\nmaterials.  It\twas  further  alleged  that  the  plaintiffs<br \/>\ncarried the  material and  delivered  the  same\t at  various<br \/>\ndestinations as per the direction given from time to time by<br \/>\nthe defendants.\t In all\t a  total  quantity  of\t 1,73,78,821<br \/>\nmetric tones  of iron  and steel  were transported  and\t the<br \/>\nnecessary bills\t were submitted\t in November,  1979. But the<br \/>\ndefendant instead  of making the payments in accordance with<br \/>\nthe terms  of the  contract postponed  the  payment  of\t the<br \/>\nbills. It  was averred\tin the\tplaint\tthat  the  defendant<br \/>\nagreed to  pay on  multi slab  basis which  is apparent from<br \/>\nletter of  the plaintiff attached to the tender submitted by<br \/>\nhim and\t that was  also the  trade practice.  The  plaintiff<br \/>\nfinally issued\ta  notice  on  28.3.1980  calling  upon\t the<br \/>\ndefendants to settle the bills but the defendants replied on<br \/>\n7.5.1980  making   several  misleading\t averments.  As\t the<br \/>\nplaintiffs&#8217; bills  were not  settled, the suit was filed for<br \/>\nrecovery of the amount as already stated.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The defendants  in their  written statement  denied the<br \/>\nallegations made  in the plaint. The specific stand taken in<br \/>\nthe written  statement\twas  that  the\tplaintiffs  are\t not<br \/>\nentitled to  claim multi  slab basis  and on  the other hand<br \/>\nthey are  entitled to  single slab basis. It was stated that<br \/>\nthe multi slab rates had never been accepted and not covered<br \/>\nby the agreement executed by the parties. It was also stated<br \/>\nthat on\t the basis  of instructions  from  headquarters\t the<br \/>\nSuperintending Engineers  have been  passing  the  bills  on<br \/>\nsingle slab  basis and the plaintiffs remained silent during<br \/>\nthe entire  tenure of  the contract  period but\t raised this<br \/>\nissue after  the contract  period was  over.  The  defendant<br \/>\nfurther averred\t that the  plaintiffs have not delivered the<br \/>\nmaterials correctly  at some  destinations. In\treply to the<br \/>\naforesaid written  statement the  plaintiffs  also  filed  a<br \/>\nreply statement\t denying the allegations made in the written<br \/>\nstatement and  reiterated the  stand taken in the plaint. On<br \/>\nthese pleadings the learned Single Judge framed three issues<br \/>\nand on\tIssue No. 1 came to hold that the rates mentioned in<br \/>\nExhibit D-8  will have to be calculated on single slab basis<br \/>\nand not\t on multi slab basis as contended by the plaintiffs.<br \/>\nSo far\tas the\tletter Exhibit P-1 dated 11.7.1978 which was<br \/>\nenclosed to  the tender form Exhibit P-2, the learned Single<br \/>\nJudge negatived\t the contention of the defendant and came to<br \/>\nhold that the words written in ink in Exhibit P-1 were there<br \/>\nat the\ttime of\t submission of the tender. The words were &#8220;I<br \/>\nhave quoted  my rates  for each slab and add for every extra<br \/>\none and\t part thereof&#8221;.\t The plaintiffs&#8217; case is essentially<br \/>\nbased on  the aforesaid\t expression in\tthe letter which was<br \/>\nenclosed to the tender and which according to the plaintiffs<br \/>\nwas ultimately\taccepted. The learned Single Judge, however,<br \/>\nconstrued  the\texpression  &#8220;for  each\tslab&#8221;  mentioned  in<br \/>\nExhibit D-6  and came  to hold\tthat the  tender was  not on<br \/>\nmulti slab  basis. The\tlearned Judge  also held that merely<br \/>\nbecause the  tender conditions\tare  not  clear\t one  cannot<br \/>\naccept the contention of the plaintiff that the rates agreed<br \/>\nupon is on multi slab basis. Further taking into account the<br \/>\nterms and  conditions of  Exhibit D-1 the learned Judge came<br \/>\nto hold\t that the  irresistible conclusion  is that what was<br \/>\nintended is only a single slab basis. The learned Judge also<br \/>\nexamined  several  other  tenders  and\tthen  negatived\t the<br \/>\nplaintiff&#8217;s contention\tthat the agreement was on multi slab<br \/>\nbasis. On  an analysis\tof the pattern of the working of the<br \/>\nrates in  several tenders  the learned\tJudge  rejected\t the<br \/>\nplaintiffs contention  that the\t contract was  on multi slab<br \/>\nbasis.\t Though\t  the\tplaintiffs   relied   upon   several<br \/>\nrecommendations\t of  the  Superintending  Engineer  but\t the<br \/>\nlearned Judge on consideration of the same came to hold that<br \/>\nthose recommendations  will have to be rejected. It was also<br \/>\nheld that  the terms and conditions of a contract have to be<br \/>\ndecided on  its own  and production  of other contracts will<br \/>\nnot be\tof any\thelp in\t deciding what\tare the terms of the<br \/>\npresent contract. He also held that the defendants failed to<br \/>\nproduce any  other contemporarius  contract which  has\tbeen<br \/>\ngranted on  multi slab\tbasis. On  issue No.  2 the  learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge  on consideration\tof entire evidence on record<br \/>\ncame to\t hold that  the shortages  alleged by the defendants<br \/>\nhad not\t been established. On Issue No. 3 the learned Single<br \/>\nJudge came  to hold  that there is considerable delay in the<br \/>\nmatter of  payment of bills though such delay had occasioned<br \/>\non account  of difference in the interpretation of the terms<br \/>\nof the\tcontract and  the  delay  is  on  the  part  of\t the<br \/>\ndefendants in settling the bills. With these conclusions and<br \/>\non calculating on single slab basis the learned Single Judge<br \/>\npassed a decree for Rs. 9,31,157.63 with interest at 12% per<br \/>\nannum from  1.1.1980 till  the date of decree and thereafter<br \/>\nat 6%  per annum.  The suit  was thus  decreed in  part. The<br \/>\nplaintiffs challenged the decree by filing an appeal and the<br \/>\ndefendants also\t filed a  cross-objection  challenging\tthat<br \/>\npart of the decree in favour of the plaintiffs. The Division<br \/>\nBench of  the High  Court  relying  upon  the  hand  written<br \/>\nportion of Exhibit P-1 and the conduct of the Superintending<br \/>\nEngineer in  passing the  plaintiffs&#8217; bills  on\t multi\tslab<br \/>\nbasis as  well as  relying upon some other contracts came to<br \/>\nhold that  the plaintiffs are entitled to freight charges on<br \/>\nmulti slab  basis. The\tDivision Bench\talso held  that\t the<br \/>\ninterpreation of  the learned Single Judge of the expression<br \/>\n&#8216;for each  slab&#8217; is  wholly erroneous and it could only mean<br \/>\nthat  the   rate  was\ton  multi  slab\t basis.\t With  these<br \/>\nconclusions  the  Division  Bench  allowed  the\t plaintiffs&#8217;<br \/>\nappeal and  dismissed the  defendants&#8217;\tcross-objection\t and<br \/>\nhence the present appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr.  V.R.\t Reddy.\t the  learned  Additional  Solicitor<br \/>\nGeneral appearing for the appellants contended that the hand<br \/>\nwritten portion\t in the plaintiff&#8217;s letter Exhibit P-1 dated<br \/>\n11.7.1978 which\t was enclosed to the tender form Exhibit P-2<br \/>\nis  nothing  but  a  subsequent\t interpolation\tinasmuch  as<br \/>\nneither there is any signature either of the plaintiff or of<br \/>\nthe receiving  officer on the same and further it was really<br \/>\nastonishing  that   though  the\t  tender  was  submitted  on<br \/>\n12.7.1978 but according to the plaintiff an attested copy of<br \/>\nthe letter  could be  obtained from the departmental officer<br \/>\non 11.7.1978.  Mr. Reddy  further argued that the acceptance<br \/>\nof the\ttender by  the contractor  clearly indicates that it<br \/>\nwas on\tsingle slab  basis as  the note\t to the\t same states<br \/>\n&#8220;only one  rate should\tbe quoted  for various\tlengths\t and<br \/>\nsizes and  not different  rates for  different lengths&#8221;. Mr.<br \/>\nReddy further  urged that  the very fact that the plaintiffs<br \/>\ndid not submit any bills till the end of the contract period<br \/>\nand started  to submit\tthe bills during the extended period<br \/>\nof the\tcontract would indicate that with an obvious illegal<br \/>\ndesign the bills were not being submitted in time. Repelling<br \/>\nthe reasonings\tadvanced by  the Division  Bench of the High<br \/>\nCourt Mr.  Reddy urged that passing of some bills by some of<br \/>\nthe Superintending  Engineers on  multi slab  basis  is\t not<br \/>\ndeterminative of  the terms  and conditions  of the contract<br \/>\nparticularly  when   the  contract  is\ta  written  one\t and<br \/>\nconsequently the  Division  Bench  erred  in  law  that\t the<br \/>\ncontract was on multi slab basis.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We find  sufficient force\tin each\t of the\t contentions<br \/>\nadvanced by the learned counsel for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr.  Sivasubramanaim,   the  learned   senior   counsel<br \/>\nappearing for  the  respondents\t repelling  the\t contentions<br \/>\nadvanced by  Mr. Reddy\turged that there was no issue at all<br \/>\non the\tquestion as  to whether\t hand  written\tportion\t was<br \/>\nsubsequently inserted with the connivance of the officers of<br \/>\nthe Board and therefore it would not be appropriate for this<br \/>\nCourt to  interfere with the same at this stage. The learned<br \/>\ncounsel also  contended that the very admission of DW-1, one<br \/>\nof the\twitnesses of the defendants to the effect that after<br \/>\nsubmission of  the tender,  discussions were  made with\t the<br \/>\ncontractor and\tthe contractor\texplicitly expressed to have<br \/>\nthe work  done on  multi slab basis, clinches the matter and<br \/>\nit is  not open\t for the  defendants to give a go bye to the<br \/>\nsaid admission\tof the\twitness. The  learned  counsel\talso<br \/>\nurged that  the defendants  in fact  accepted and  acted  on<br \/>\nmulti slab basis as is apparent from the letter Exhibit P-39<br \/>\ndated 18.4.80  from  the  Superintending  Engineer,  General<br \/>\nConstruction  Circle\/South,   Tirunelvalli  to\t the   Chief<br \/>\nEngineer, Materials  Management,  whereunder  not  only\t the<br \/>\nSuperintending\tEngineer  has  candidly\t admitted  that\t the<br \/>\nsystem of  payment of  multi slab basis has been in vogue in<br \/>\nseveral circles\t but also stated that the single slab system<br \/>\nwill not give a workable practical solution. Learned counsel<br \/>\nlastly urged  that the\tsingle slab system is on the face of<br \/>\nit wholly  unreasonable and  to sustain\t the  said  argument<br \/>\nplaced before  us certain  calculations\t made  in  different<br \/>\ndocuments. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with<br \/>\nthe contentions\t advanced by  the learned  counsel  for\t the<br \/>\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>     At the  outset it\tmust  be  borne\t in  mind  that\t the<br \/>\nagreement between  the parties\twas a  written agreement and<br \/>\ntherefore the  parties are bound by the terms and conditions<br \/>\nof the\tagreement. Once a contract is reduced to writing, by<br \/>\noperation of  Section 91  of the Evidence Act it is not open<br \/>\nto any\tof the\tparties to  seek to  prove the\tterms of the<br \/>\ncontract with  reference to  some oral\tor other documentary<br \/>\nevidence to  find out  the intention  of the  parties. Under<br \/>\nSection 92  of the Evidence Act where the written instrument<br \/>\nappears to  contain the\t whole terms  of the  contract\tthen<br \/>\nparties to  the contract  are not  entitled to lead any oral<br \/>\nevidence to  ascertain the terms of the contract. It is only<br \/>\nwhen the  written contract does not contain the whole of the<br \/>\nagreement between  the parties\tand there  is any  ambiguity<br \/>\nthen  oral  evidence  is  permissible  to  prose  the  other<br \/>\nconditions which  also must  not be  inconsistent  with\t the<br \/>\nwritten contract.  The case  in\t hand  has  to\tbe  adjudged<br \/>\nbearing in  mind the aforesaid principles and the plaintiffs<br \/>\nbeing conscious\t of this  position  along  with\t the  tender<br \/>\nappended a  letter and in that letter inserted certain terms<br \/>\nby writing  in ink to establish the case that the acceptance<br \/>\nof the plaintiffs&#8217; tender would tantamount to the acceptance<br \/>\nto the\tterms contained\t in the\t letter in  which there\t was<br \/>\ninsertion in writing to the effect that it was on multi slab<br \/>\nbasis. It  is in this context the question whether such hand<br \/>\nwritten portion\t was originally\t there or  was\tsubsequently<br \/>\ninserted assumes great significance. We are unable to accept<br \/>\nthe stand  taken by  the learned counsel for the respondents<br \/>\nthat there  was no  such issue\ton this question inasmuch as<br \/>\nthis question  was considered  by the  learned\tTrial  Judge<br \/>\nwhile discussing  Issue No.  1 on the basis of evidence laid<br \/>\nand the\t Trial Judge  had given\t a finding  in favour of the<br \/>\nplaintiffs. The\t said finding,\thowever, on  the face  of it<br \/>\nappears to us to be wholly unsustainable. As has been stated<br \/>\nearlier\t there\twas  no\t signature  either  by\tthe  persons<br \/>\nsubmitting the\ttender or  by the persons receiving the same<br \/>\non the hand written portion of the letter. The learned Trial<br \/>\nJudge had  noticed that\t the certified copy which was issued<br \/>\nby the\tBoard on  11.7.1978 of\tthe aforesaid letter clearly<br \/>\ncontains the  hand written  portion and therefore he came to<br \/>\nthe conclusion\tthat the  hand written\tportion was there at<br \/>\nthe time  of submission of the tender. The tender itself was<br \/>\nsubmitted on  12.7.1978 and  we fail  to understand  how the<br \/>\nBoard  could  grant  a\tcertified  copy\t of  the  letter  on<br \/>\n11.7.1978 when\tthe plaintiffs&#8217;\t case itself  is that  along<br \/>\nwith the  tender he  had appended the letter in question. On<br \/>\nthis ground  alone it  can be  safely held that hand written<br \/>\nportion in  Exhibit  P-1  was  not  there  at  the  time  of<br \/>\nsubmission of  the  tender  but\t was  subsequently  inserted<br \/>\nobviously with\tthe connivance of the officers of the Board.<br \/>\nThe Board in its rejoinder affidavit filed in this Court has<br \/>\nstated that  the attested  copy\t was  actually\treceived  on<br \/>\n28.12.1978, much  later than the finalization of the tenders<br \/>\nand agreement  and in order to build up a case the aforesaid<br \/>\ninterpolation has  been made. In the facts and circumstances<br \/>\nof the present case the aforesaid stand of the Board appears<br \/>\nto us  to be  wholly justified\tand at\tany rate  we have no<br \/>\nhesitation to  come to\tthe conclusion that the hand written<br \/>\nportion in  Exhibit P-1 was not there initially and has been<br \/>\ninserted subsequently.\tThe main  basis of  the\t plaintiffs&#8217;<br \/>\ncase on which a multi slab rate was claimed therefore fails.<br \/>\nThe written  agreement between the parties nowhere indicates<br \/>\nthat the rate to be paid to the plaintiffs was on multi slab<br \/>\nbasis and  the terms  and conditions of the written contract<br \/>\nis not susceptible of such a construction.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It is  no\tdoubt  true  that  DW-1\t a  witness  of\t the<br \/>\ndefendants  in\t his  evidence\t had  admitted\t that  after<br \/>\nsubmission of  tender there  was certain discussions between<br \/>\nthe contractor\tand the\t authorities and  in that discussion<br \/>\ncontractor had expressed to charge for the job on multi slab<br \/>\nbasis and  same was  accepted by  the  authorities.  We\t are<br \/>\nafraid\ta   decree  cannot  be\tgranted\t in  favour  of\t the<br \/>\nplaintiffs on  the aforesaid statement since the contract in<br \/>\nhand was  a written  one. There is no document whatsoever in<br \/>\nsupport of  the aforesaid  so called after tender discussion<br \/>\nand the\t acceptance of\tthe terms  in the said discussion to<br \/>\nthe effect  that rate  would be charged on multi slab basis.<br \/>\nThen again  if the  plaintiff had appended the letter to the<br \/>\ntender indicating  that he  would be  charging on multi slab<br \/>\nbasis there  was  no  occasion\tto  have  any  after  tender<br \/>\ndiscussion or  to raise\t the issue of rate being accepted on<br \/>\nmulti slab  basis. The so called statement of DW-1 therefore<br \/>\nis wholly  unacceptable and in the eye of law also cannot be<br \/>\ntaken  into  account  to  vary\tthe  terms  of\tthe  written<br \/>\ncontract. The  Division Bench  of the  High Court  committed<br \/>\nobvious error  in allowing  variance of\t the  terms  of\t the<br \/>\nwritten contract  relying upon\tsuch statement\tof DW-1\t and<br \/>\ngranted the decree on multi slab basis.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The   only\t   other   question   which   survives\t for<br \/>\nconsideration  is   whether   the   conduct   of   some\t  of<br \/>\nSuperintending Engineers  in passing  some of  the bills  on<br \/>\nmulti slab  basis can  be pleaded as an estopped against the<br \/>\ndefendants and\tcan form  the basis of plaintiffs&#8217; case. The<br \/>\nanswer\tto  this  question  must  be  in  the  negative.  It<br \/>\ntranspires that\t some of the Superintending Engineers passed<br \/>\nsome of\t the bills  on multi  slab basis  and  further\twhen<br \/>\ncomplaints were\t received and  the matter  was\tinvestigated<br \/>\ninto by\t vigilance to  absolve the  concerned officers\tfrom<br \/>\nliability, a  recommendation has been made to grant the rate<br \/>\non multi  slab basis.  But such\t a  recommendation  or\tsuch<br \/>\npassing of  bills on one count or multi slab basis cannot be<br \/>\nconstrued to have conferred a right on the plaintiffs to get<br \/>\nthe payments  on multi\tslab basis,  until and\tunless it is<br \/>\nproved by the plaintiff that the defendants agreed under the<br \/>\nwritten contract  to pay on multi slab basis. The plaintiffs<br \/>\nhave utterly  failed to\t establish the\tsame.  A  particular<br \/>\nofficer for  various reasons  may pass\ta bill on multi slab<br \/>\nbasis or  a contractor\tmay be\table to get one of his bills<br \/>\npassed at  a rate  other than  the  rate  given\t in  written<br \/>\ncontract in  connivance with the passing authority. But when<br \/>\na  dispute   arises  and  the  matter  comes  to  court\t for<br \/>\nadjudication no\t decree can  be granted to the plaintiffs on<br \/>\nthat basis and the plaintiffs would be required to establish<br \/>\nthat the  defendants in written contract agreed to grant the<br \/>\nrate on\t multi slab  basis. That has not been established in<br \/>\nthe case  in hand.  Therefore, in our considered opinion the<br \/>\nDivision Bench\tof the\tHigh Court  wholly erred  in law  in<br \/>\nallowing the  plaintiffs&#8217; appeal  and  granting\t the  decree<br \/>\naccepting plaintiffs&#8217;  claim that the rate has to be paid on<br \/>\nmulti slab  basis. In  the aforesaid  premises the  impugned<br \/>\njudgment and  decree of\t the Division Bench is set aside and<br \/>\nthat of the learned Single Judge is affirmed. This appeal is<br \/>\nallowed but  in the  circumstances there will be no order as<br \/>\nto costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Tamil Nadu Electricity Board &amp; Anr vs N. Raju Reddiar &amp; Anr on 24 April, 1996 Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 2025, 1996 SCC (4) 551 Author: G Pattanaik Bench: G.B. Pattanaik (J) PETITIONER: TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD &amp; ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: N. RAJU REDDIAR &amp; ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/04\/1996 BENCH: [&hellip;]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-177227","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Tamil Nadu Electricity Board &amp; Anr vs N. Raju Reddiar &amp; Anr on 24 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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-anr-vs-n-raju-reddiar-anr-on-24-april-1996\" \/>\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 &amp; Anr vs N. Raju Reddiar &amp; Anr on 24 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-anr-vs-n-raju-reddiar-anr-on-24-april-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-07T05:13:46+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=\"15 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-anr-vs-n-raju-reddiar-anr-on-24-april-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-anr-vs-n-raju-reddiar-anr-on-24-april-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tamil Nadu Electricity Board &amp; Anr vs N. Raju Reddiar &amp; Anr on 24 April, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-07T05:13:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-anr-vs-n-raju-reddiar-anr-on-24-april-1996\"},\"wordCount\":2951,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-anr-vs-n-raju-reddiar-anr-on-24-april-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-anr-vs-n-raju-reddiar-anr-on-24-april-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-anr-vs-n-raju-reddiar-anr-on-24-april-1996\",\"name\":\"Tamil Nadu Electricity Board &amp; Anr vs N. Raju Reddiar &amp; Anr on 24 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-07T05:13:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-anr-vs-n-raju-reddiar-anr-on-24-april-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-anr-vs-n-raju-reddiar-anr-on-24-april-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-anr-vs-n-raju-reddiar-anr-on-24-april-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tamil Nadu Electricity Board &amp; Anr vs N. Raju Reddiar &amp; Anr on 24 April, 1996\"}]},{\"@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 &amp; Anr vs N. Raju Reddiar &amp; Anr on 24 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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-anr-vs-n-raju-reddiar-anr-on-24-april-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tamil Nadu Electricity Board &amp; Anr vs N. Raju Reddiar &amp; Anr on 24 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-anr-vs-n-raju-reddiar-anr-on-24-april-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-07T05:13:46+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-anr-vs-n-raju-reddiar-anr-on-24-april-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-anr-vs-n-raju-reddiar-anr-on-24-april-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tamil Nadu Electricity Board &amp; Anr vs N. Raju Reddiar &amp; Anr on 24 April, 1996","datePublished":"1996-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-07T05:13:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-anr-vs-n-raju-reddiar-anr-on-24-april-1996"},"wordCount":2951,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-anr-vs-n-raju-reddiar-anr-on-24-april-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-anr-vs-n-raju-reddiar-anr-on-24-april-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-anr-vs-n-raju-reddiar-anr-on-24-april-1996","name":"Tamil Nadu Electricity Board &amp; Anr vs N. Raju Reddiar &amp; Anr on 24 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-07T05:13:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-anr-vs-n-raju-reddiar-anr-on-24-april-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-anr-vs-n-raju-reddiar-anr-on-24-april-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-electricity-board-anr-vs-n-raju-reddiar-anr-on-24-april-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tamil Nadu Electricity Board &amp; Anr vs N. Raju Reddiar &amp; Anr on 24 April, 1996"}]},{"@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\/177227","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=177227"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177227\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=177227"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=177227"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=177227"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}