{"id":220006,"date":"2006-04-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-04-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/annamalai-rubber-products-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-28-april-2006"},"modified":"2014-11-10T10:01:11","modified_gmt":"2014-11-10T04:31:11","slug":"annamalai-rubber-products-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-28-april-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/annamalai-rubber-products-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-28-april-2006","title":{"rendered":"Annamalai Rubber Products vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 28 April, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Annamalai Rubber Products vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 28 April, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 28\/04\/2006\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI\n\n\nW.P.No.10533 of 2005\nand\nW.P.M.P.No.11259 and 11260 of 2005\n\n\nAnnamalai Rubber Products\nRep.by its Partner,\n29-C, Meenakshi Illam,\nVisalakshi Street,\nThirunagar,\nMadurai-625 006.\t\t....\t\tPetitioner\n\n\nVs.\n\n\t\nThe Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\nRep.by the Asst.Engineer (Distn)\nKappalur,\nMadurai District.\t\t....\t\tRespondent\n\n\nPRAYER\n\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\npraying for the issuance of a Writ of   Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the\nrecords of the respondent herein relating to his order in letter\nNo.AEE\/KPLR\/cI\/F.Loc\/D.No.913\/04 dated 27.12.2004, quash the same and forthwith\nrestroe the service connection A.142 Shed No.91 SIDCO Industrial Estate\nKappalur.\n\n\n!For Petitioner   \t...\tMr.AR.L.Sundaresan\n\n\n^For Respondent\t\t...\tMr.A.Baskar,\n\t\t\t\tStanding Counsel for TNEB.\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned<br \/>\ncounsel appearing for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the respondents<br \/>\ndated 27.12.2004 and also to forthwith restore the service connection in A.142<br \/>\nat Shed No.91 SIDCO Industrial Estate, Kappalur.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is in possession of<br \/>\nthe building bearing No.91 SIDCO, Industrial Estate and was provided with<br \/>\nelectricity service connection by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board under Service<br \/>\nconnection No.142, with effect from 23.07.1999.  The load which was originally<br \/>\n50HP  plus 800 watts was subsequently increased with additional load of 45 HP on<br \/>\n23.3.2000.  While fixing the electronic metre, the Board has fixed VICTRI make<br \/>\nwith 5 amps capacity. On 27.l2.2004, the petitioner was served with an order<br \/>\nfrom the respondent alleging that on an inspection on 24.12.2004, it was found<br \/>\nthat the service connection had recorded only 40.46 per cent of the actual<br \/>\nconsumption and 50.54 percent of the consumption was not recorded in the metre.<br \/>\nTherefore, the billing was to be revised under clause 19.16 of the terms and<br \/>\nconditions of electricity supply and revision.  It is also stated that the<br \/>\nrevision will have to be made for the period from 23.12.2001 and accordingly an<br \/>\namount of Rs.19,19,964\/- was directed to be collected from the petitioner and<br \/>\nthe petitioner was called upon to pay the said amount within 30 days.  This<br \/>\nimpugned order is challenged on many grounds including that the petitioner was<br \/>\nnot given an opportunity at the time of any inspection.  That apart, it is the<br \/>\ncase of the petitioner that even the respondents in the letter dated 28.03.2005<br \/>\nhave stated that the CGS VICTRI metre will record eventhough current direction<br \/>\nof all current transformer is reversed.  The electricity connection was<br \/>\nsubsequently disconnected on 17.01.2005 and the industry was closed on account<br \/>\nof the power disconnection.  The order is also challenged on the other ground of<br \/>\nviolation of natural justice apart from the ground that it is not even stated as<br \/>\nto how the amount of Rs.19,19,964\/-  has been arrived at.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. It is also the specific case of the petitioner that the respondent<br \/>\nseeks to place reliance on Clause 19.16 of the terms and conditions of<br \/>\nElectricity Supply which was framed under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply<br \/>\nAct, 1948. While, the said Act has been repealed after the Electricity Act, 2003<br \/>\nhas come into effect with effect from 10.06.2003 and therefore, the impugned<br \/>\nproceedings under the clause 19.16 are not valid in law after the new Act has<br \/>\ncome into force.  The Board has framed Electricity Supply Code which has come<br \/>\ninto effect after 01.09.2004 and as per the terms of the said Code especially<br \/>\nClause 7(8)  and 11 a method has been provided to find out the defective metre<br \/>\nand the quantity of electricity supply. When such procedures have not been<br \/>\nfollowed, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. On the other hand, the respondent has filed counter affidavit denying<br \/>\nthe allegations.  According to the respondents, it was as per the Clause 19.16<br \/>\nfor billing and payment framed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the revision<br \/>\nwas made. According to the respondent, the revision was properly intimated to<br \/>\nthe consumer regarding the less percentage of consumption. The service<br \/>\nconnection was disconnected due to the reasons of non-remittance of monthly<br \/>\nconsumption charges.  According to the respondent, eventhough it is admitted<br \/>\nthat the notification of the Electricity Supply Act, 2003 was published in the<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Gazette in September 2004, the implementation of the rules and<br \/>\nregulations were  not communicated at the time when the revision of billing for<br \/>\nservice connection No.142 was made.  It is also the case of the respondent that<br \/>\nwhen once the assessment is made under the Electricity Supply Code any<br \/>\nassessment made within 24 months before the Electricity Act 2003 came into force<br \/>\nand any revision made accordingly is permissible.  Therefore, according to the<br \/>\nrespondents, the impugned order is valid in law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the<br \/>\npetitioner would submit that at the time when the inspection stated to have been<br \/>\nconducted by the respondents on 24.12.2004, the Electricity Act of 2003 has<br \/>\nalready come into force which was on 10.06.2003. According to him, even the<br \/>\nElectricity Supply Code framed under the Electricity Act of 2003 has also come<br \/>\ninto force from 01.09.2004 and therefore, applying the old Clause 19.16 under<br \/>\nthe Electricity Act, 1948 and passing the impugned order based on the same<br \/>\nitself will make the impugned order void.  According to the learned counsel,<br \/>\nSection 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which contemplates a duty on the part of<br \/>\nthe State Commission to specify the Electricity Supply Code and it was based on<br \/>\nthe said enabling provision the State Commission has also framed, the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nElectricity Supply Code of 2004 which was published in the official Gazette on<br \/>\n01.09.2004.  The said code while speaking about the installation of metre in<br \/>\nRule 7 contemplates a periodical recalibration and standardisation of metres by<br \/>\nmeans of standard instruments by the licensee. As it is seen in Rule 7(8) of the<br \/>\nsame Rule in respect of high tension service connections will be done in the<br \/>\npresence of the consumers electrical engineers or his representative.  Further,<br \/>\naccording to the learned Senior Counsel, the Clause 11 contemplates the<br \/>\nassessment of billing in cases where the metre is defective or there was no<br \/>\nmetre.  It is this Clause 11 contemplate the entire procedures to be followed in<br \/>\ncases where a defective metre has been found out.  According to the learned<br \/>\ncounsel, no one of the procedures contemplated under the said Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nElectricity Supply Code of 2004 has been followed and the decision has been<br \/>\narrived at on assumption.  According to the learned Senior counsel, while<br \/>\nrepealing the earlier Act 1948, Section 185 of the Electricity Act of 2003<br \/>\ncategorically states any action taken or purported to have been done under the<br \/>\nprevious repealed laws shall be deemed to have been taken under the new Act<br \/>\nprovided they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the new Act.   On the<br \/>\nface of it, while the procedures contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Electricity<br \/>\nCode framed as per the new Act is totally different from that of the procedures<br \/>\ncontemplated under the old Act of 1948, according to the learned  counsel,<br \/>\nSection 185 cannot protect the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. On the other hand, Mr.A.Baskar learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nrespondent would contend that any action taken within a period of 24 months<br \/>\nbefore the new Act has come into force is validated as per the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nElectricity Supply Code 2004 and therefore, according to him, the impugned order<br \/>\ncannot be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the respondent and perused the entire records.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 9. Admittedly, the Electricity Act 2003 has come into effect with effect<br \/>\nfrom 10.06.2003, under Section 185 of the said Act, the previous acts including<br \/>\nthe Electricity Supply Act, 1948 was stands repealed.  However, Section 185(2)<br \/>\nsaves certain action taken up by the authorities under the earlier Act, while<br \/>\nleaving the saving clause, Section 185(2) categorically states that the saving<br \/>\nunder the earlier enactments shall be insofar as the same are not inconsistent<br \/>\nthat the provisions of the present Act.   In the present case while it is<br \/>\nadmitted by the respondent that the impugned order was passed is based on the<br \/>\nclause 19.16 terms and conditions of supply of Electricity which was framed as<br \/>\nper the previous Act of 1948.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. It is relevant to point out that the impugned order which is dated<br \/>\n27.12.2004 was admittedly passed based on the report of the officials of the<br \/>\nrespondent dated 24.12.2004.  On the said date namely 24.12.2004, admittedly,<br \/>\nthe Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code of 2004 has come into effect from<br \/>\n01.09.2004.  The said code framed by the Tamil Nadu Government in accordance<br \/>\nwith the powers conferred under Section 50 of the Electricity Act of 2003<br \/>\nprovides an exhaustive procedure of assessment of billing in cases where there<br \/>\nwas no metre or defective metre.  The relevant rule under the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nElectricity Supply Code 2004 namely Rule 11 which formulates the procedure as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;11.Assessmnet of billing in cases where there is no meter or meter is<br \/>\ndefective.-(1) Where supply to the consumer is given without a meter or where<br \/>\nthe meter is fixed is found defective or to have ceased to function and no theft<br \/>\nof energy or violation is suspected, the quantity of electricity supplied during<br \/>\nthe period when the meter was not installed or the meter installed was<br \/>\ndefective, shall be assessed as mentioned hereunder.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2)The quantity of electricity supplied during the period in question shall<br \/>\nbe determined by taking the average of the electricity supplied during the<br \/>\npreceding four months in respect of both high tension service connections and<br \/>\nlow tension service connections, provided that the conditions in regard to use<br \/>\nof electricity during the said four months were not different from those which<br \/>\nprevailed during the period in question.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3) In respect of high tension service connections, where the meter fixed<br \/>\nfor measuring the maximum demand becomes defective, the maximum demand shall be<br \/>\nassessed by computation on the basis of the average of the recorded demand<br \/>\nduring the previous four months.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4) Where the meter becomes defective immediately after the service<br \/>\nconnection is effected, the quantum of electricity supplied during the period in<br \/>\nquestion is to be determined by taking the average of the electricity supplied<br \/>\nduring the succeeding four months period after installation of a correct meter,<br \/>\nprovided the conditions in regard to the use of electricity in respect of such<br \/>\nlow tension service connections are not different.  The consumer shall be<br \/>\ncharged monthly minimum provisionally for defective period and after assessment<br \/>\nthe actual charges will be recovered after adjusting the amount collected<br \/>\nprovisionally.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5)If the conditions in regard to the use of electricity during the periods<br \/>\nas mentioned above were different, assessment shall be made on the basis of any<br \/>\nconsecutive four months period during the preceding twelve months when the<br \/>\nconditions of working were similar to those in the period covered by the<br \/>\nbilling.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6)Where it is not possible to select a set of four months, the quantity of<br \/>\nelectricity supplied will be assessed in the case of low tension service<br \/>\nconnections by the engineer in charge of the distribution and in the case of<br \/>\nhigh tension service connections by the next higher level officer on the basis<br \/>\nof the connected load and the hours of usage of electricity by the consumer.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7)In case the consumer does not agree with the assessment made by the<br \/>\nengineer or the higher level officer, as the case may be, the matter may be<br \/>\nreferred to the next higher level officer of the licensee.  In case the consumer<br \/>\nis still not satisfied, the consumer is at liberty to approach the respective<br \/>\nConsumer Grievance Redressal Forum of the licensee.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. It is not even the case of the respondent in the counter affidavit<br \/>\nthat this was the procedure available under the earlier Act of 1948 and the<br \/>\nrules framed thereunder by the Government of Tamil Nadu.  Whileso, it is clear<br \/>\nthat the impugned order passed under clause 19 of the earlier Rules cannot be<br \/>\nstated to have been saved by the saving clause under Section 185(2) of the<br \/>\nElectricity Supply Act, 2003. A reference to the report dated 24.12.2004 stated<br \/>\nto be the basis for passing of the impugned order also shows that the assessment<br \/>\nhas been arrived at even after finding that MRT Security seals are intact but<br \/>\nstating that the CT wirings were checked and found that CT Secondary Wiring in B<br \/>\nphase was found reversed as M and L points were interchanged that was the reason<br \/>\nstated to have been found for less recording of the metres. Apparently, that is<br \/>\nnot the procedure contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code of<br \/>\n2004 Rule 11 which I have enumerated above.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. It is also relevant to point out that the inspection report does not<br \/>\nreveal that the inspection was done in the presence of the petitioner.  In view<br \/>\nof the said factual position and also due to legal reasoning,  I am of the<br \/>\nconsidered view that the impugned order passed by the respondent is opposed to<br \/>\nthe Electricity Act, 2003 and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Code 2004 and<br \/>\naccordingly the same is set aside.  The writ petition stands allowed.  It is<br \/>\nopen to the respondent Board to proceed as per the New Act and code if so<br \/>\nadvised. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.Ps. are<br \/>\nalso closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>sms<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,<br \/>\nRep.by the Asst.Engineer (Distn)<br \/>\nKappalur,<br \/>\nMadurai District<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Annamalai Rubber Products vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 28 April, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28\/04\/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.No.10533 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.No.11259 and 11260 of 2005 Annamalai Rubber Products Rep.by its Partner, 29-C, Meenakshi Illam, Visalakshi Street, Thirunagar, Madurai-625 [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-220006","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Annamalai Rubber Products vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 28 April, 2006 - 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\/annamalai-rubber-products-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-28-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Annamalai Rubber Products vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 28 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/annamalai-rubber-products-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-28-april-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-10T04:31:11+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\\\/annamalai-rubber-products-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-28-april-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/annamalai-rubber-products-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-28-april-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Annamalai Rubber Products vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 28 April, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-10T04:31:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/annamalai-rubber-products-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-28-april-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2091,\"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\\\/annamalai-rubber-products-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-28-april-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/annamalai-rubber-products-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-28-april-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/annamalai-rubber-products-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-28-april-2006\",\"name\":\"Annamalai Rubber Products vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 28 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-10T04:31:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/annamalai-rubber-products-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-28-april-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/annamalai-rubber-products-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-28-april-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/annamalai-rubber-products-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-28-april-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Annamalai Rubber Products vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 28 April, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Annamalai Rubber Products vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 28 April, 2006 - 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\/annamalai-rubber-products-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-28-april-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Annamalai Rubber Products vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 28 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/annamalai-rubber-products-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-28-april-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-10T04:31:11+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\/annamalai-rubber-products-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-28-april-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/annamalai-rubber-products-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-28-april-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Annamalai Rubber Products vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 28 April, 2006","datePublished":"2006-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-10T04:31:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/annamalai-rubber-products-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-28-april-2006"},"wordCount":2091,"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\/annamalai-rubber-products-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-28-april-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/annamalai-rubber-products-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-28-april-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/annamalai-rubber-products-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-28-april-2006","name":"Annamalai Rubber Products vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 28 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-10T04:31:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/annamalai-rubber-products-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-28-april-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/annamalai-rubber-products-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-28-april-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/annamalai-rubber-products-vs-the-tamil-nadu-electricity-board-on-28-april-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Annamalai Rubber Products vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 28 April, 2006"}]},{"@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\/220006","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=220006"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220006\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=220006"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=220006"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=220006"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}