{"id":258641,"date":"2006-02-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ruby-restaurant-vs-the-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-3-february-2006"},"modified":"2015-04-01T21:44:37","modified_gmt":"2015-04-01T16:14:37","slug":"ms-ruby-restaurant-vs-the-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-3-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ruby-restaurant-vs-the-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-3-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"Ms.Ruby Restaurant vs The Tamilnadu Electricity Board on 3 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Ms.Ruby Restaurant vs The Tamilnadu Electricity Board on 3 February, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 03\/02\/2006\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI\n\n\nW.P.No.513 of 2004\nand\nW.P.M.P.No.483 Of 2004\n\t\n\nMs.Ruby Restaurant,\nRep by its Proprietor,\nG.T.George Babu,\n94,West Peruamal Maistry Street,\nMadurai 1.\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t...\tPetitioner \t\t\t\t\n\nVs.\t\n\n\n1.The TamilNadu Electricity Board,\n  Rep by the Superintending Engineer,\n  Maddurai Electricity Distribution System\/Metro,\n  K.Pudur, Madurai 1.\n\n2.The Executive Engineer,\n  South Distribution Division,\n  Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\n  Madurai 1.\t\t\t...\tRespondent\n\n\nPRAYER\n\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India,\npraying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for\nrecords of the first respondent in Letter No.MEPo\/MAMIPAVA\n\/PE.NA\/MADURAI\/Asst.Ex.Er\/A.Er.(General)\/Ko.Appeal No.776\/04 dated 30.06.2004\nconfirming the assessment order made in Letter No.E\/D\/MEUAC\/TA-II\/D dated 30-6-\n2004 and direct the respondents to refund the entire amount of Rs.1,58,937\/-\nwith interest to the petitioner.\n\n\n!For Petitioner   \t...\tMr.S.N.Anatha Padmanabhan\n\n\n^For Respondents\t...\tMr.A.Baskar\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Baskar,
\nlearned counsel appearing for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. This writ petition is preferred against the Appellate Authority\/first
\nrespondent dated 30.06.2004 and the assessment made by the Original
\nAuthority\/second respondent dated 08.10.2002, on the allegation of power theft
\nby the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. The case of the petitioner is that he is running a hotel by name Ruby
\nRestaurant at Madurai, having Electricity Connection in Sc.No.SDI.1123.
\nAccording to him, he is running the hotel for the past several years.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. It was in the year 1995, the Madurai Corporation by order dated
\n24.04.1995, has directed the petitioner to purchase the ‘ohm metre’ by himself.
\nSince the metre is not available with the Corporation, according to the
\npetitioner, he has purchased the metre at his own cost and the same was
\ninstalled by the Corporation after receiving the installation charges. After the
\ninstallation of the metre, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has taken the charge
\non 1995 onwards, inspected the same and never found any defect in the metre. The
\nElectricity charges have also been regularly paid by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. However, when there was an inspection by the respondent on 03.09.2002,
\nit was found that the metre fixed by the department was not available and the
\nseal was found to be different and the word ‘PSR’ denoting the seal of the
\ndepartment was not found. On that basis, it was suspected that there was a power
\ntheft committed by the petitioner. On that basis, there was a complaint of power
\ntheft by the department. The manager working in the petitioner’s hotel has paid
\nan amount of Rs.1,44,160\/- to the respondent on 05.09.2002, stated to be
\ncompounding fees. In addition to that, on the same day, an amount of Rs.14,777\/-
\nwas also paid by the petitioner towards another compounding fees. It is not in
\ndispute that it is the compounding fee imposed by way of penalty finding that
\nthere is a power theft.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. In the present case, the petitioner has chosen to pay the compounding
\nfees on 05.09.2002 on which date, admittedly, the assessment has not been
\ncompleted. Therefore, the said amount was paid contemplating the subsequent
\nassessment order.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. It is the further case of the petitioner which is not denied by the
\nrespondent that subsequently the assessment order was made by the second
\nrespondent by his letter dated 08.10.2002 along with the working sheet stating
\nthat by improper use of metre for the past one year, the petitioner has used
\n14,416 units for which he was suspected the compounding charges of Rs.1,44,160\/-
\nalong with 5% amounting of Rs.3,604\/- and totalling an amount of Rs.1,47,764\/-
\nwas levied. After the said assessment was made, the petitioner has made an
\nappeal before the first respondent. This appeal was provided as per the terms
\nand conditions of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Clause (37) Article (11)<\/a> schedule
\nwhich relates to theft of energy of the previous Act. As per the said
\nrequirement, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the first respondent. The
\npetitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.59,108\/-. The petitioner also
\npaid the amount for the purpose of maintaining the appeal before the first
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. The first respondent after enquiry, has passed the impugned order dated
\n30.06.2004, arriving at a conclusion that the description ‘PSQ’ is not available
\nin the metre and therefore there is a presumption of theft of energy and on that
\nbasis, he has confirmed the order of the second respondent, as power theft. In
\nthe impugned order of the Appellate Authority it is stated that in addition to
\nthe amount of Rs.59,108\/- admittedly paid by the petitioner at the time of
\nfiling of the appeal, the petitioner was directed to pay the other amount of 10
\ninstalments in the following manner.\n<\/p>\n
“1.Rs.8,871\/- on 15.07.2004\n<\/p>\n
2.Rs.8,865\/- on 15.08.2004\n<\/p>\n
3.Rs.8,865\/- on 15.09.2004\n<\/p>\n
4.Rs.8,865\/- on 15.10.2004\n<\/p>\n
5.Rs.8,865\/- on 15.11.2004\n<\/p>\n
6.Rs.8,865\/- on 15.12.2004\n<\/p>\n
7.Rs.8,865\/- on 15.01.2005\n<\/p>\n
8.Rs.8,865\/- on 15.\/02.2005\n<\/p>\n
9.Rs.8,865\/- on 15.03.2005\n<\/p>\n
10.Rs.8,865\/-on 15.04.2005″\n<\/p>\n
\t9. According to the petitioner, he has paid four instalments due on
\n15.07.2004, 15.08.2004, 15.09.2004, 15.10.2004 amounting to Rs.35,466\/- and
\ntherefore the total amount of Rs.94,592\/- was paid by the petitioner while
\npending the appeal before the first respondent. It is relevant to point out that
\nthis amount was paid by the  petitioner, in addition to the compounding charges
\ncollected from the petitioner, namely, an amount of Rs.1,47,764\/- even on
\n05.09.2002. The said impugned order is assailed by the learned counsel for the
\npetitioner in the following manner:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Original Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have not
\nconsidered the various points raised by the petitioner. According to the learned
\ncounsel for the petitioner, as per the terms and conditions and schedule
\nexisting at that time, the petitioner must have been given an opportunity to
\nprove his case. It is also stated that as per the said clause, the Original
\nAuthority while making assessment, is expected to give a show cause notice and
\nif his explanation is not satisfactory, a detailed enquiry should be conducted
\nby giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to prove that the allegation
\nof the power theft, is not correct.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the assessing
\nAuthority has given a show cause notice and not considered the various averments
\nmade by the petitioner including that of the original order of the corporation
\nwhich has permitted the petitioner to purchase the metre at his own cost.
\nLearned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that even the appellate
\nauthority has not chosen to consider the same and, therefore, it is vitiated and
\nit is against the terms and conditions of the Electricity Board itself.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. Per contra, Mr.A.Baskar, learned counsel for the Electricity Board
\nwould state that even though, it is true that earlier when the Madurai
\nCorporation has permitted the petitioner to purchase the metre, since the metre
\nwas not available, subsequent to the taking over of the control, the Electricity
\nBoard has got right to insist its own regulation.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. Nevertheless, it is not the case of the learned counsel for the
\nrespondents that the respondent\/Board has not found fault with the conduct of
\nthe corporation. Mr.A.Baskar, learned counsel for the respondent would further
\ncontend that the payment of compounding fees made by the petitioner on
\n05.09.2002 would not in any way exonerate the liability of the petitioner, if
\nthe board comes to a conclusion that, in fact, the power theft has been
\ncommitted.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. According to the learned counsel, a perusal of the order of the
\nAppellate Authority would show that there is a specific finding that the metre
\nis bogus. Therefore, this Court cannot go beyond that since it is a finding of
\nfact by an authority which contemplated under a specified terms and conditions
\nof enquiry.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. As stated earlier, the fact remains that at the time when the metre
\nwas installed, the same was not issued either by the corporation or by the Board
\nits own instruments. A specific permission was given to the petitioner to
\npurchase the metre at his own cost and after purchase of the metre, the then
\nmunicipality has infact installed the Electricity connection after collecting
\nnecessary charges from the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. Therefore, in my considered view, the Board namely the first
\nrespondent can not take a stand as if they are not bound by the decision taken
\nby the earlier corporation and the learned counsel for the respondents fairly
\nadmitted that the board is bound by whatever the decision taken by the previous
\nauthority namely the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. The fact remains to be considered is as to whether the first and
\nsecond respondents being authority and Appeallate Authority contemplated under
\nAct and the service connection have done their statutory duty in a proper
\nmanner. A perusal of the impugned orders would show that nowhere in these two
\norders the situations are found that there was a variation in the metre reading
\nwhich is a sine qua non for arriving at a conclusion for power theft. In
\naddition to that, I am to state that by going through the impugned order, the
\nbasis of the order is that the seal with inscription PSQ is not available. That
\ntoo the original authority says that the inscription is PSR, while the appellate
\nauthority uses the PSQ. Except that the said inscription is not available, there
\nis no other charge apparently on the face of it, against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. A further reading of the impugned order would show that the metre was
\nintact and there was no breaking of seal. Whileso, it is not known as to how an
\nassessment has been made by the second respondent that a power theft has been
\ncommitted and the second respondent simply confirmed the same and on the face of
\nit, I see that the orders passed by the respondent without giving any
\nopportunity to the petitioner so as to establish his contention, as required
\nunder the terms and conditions then in existence.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed
\nby the respondents, must be set aside, and the second respondent must be
\ndirected to conduct a fresh enquiry, giving adequate opportunity to the
\npetitioner which include the personal hearing as contemplated under the original
\nterms and conditions enumerated above.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. As far as the amount of Rs.94,952\/- received from the petitioner.
\nWhile the matter was pending before the appellate authority, there will be a
\ndirection to the respondents to return the amount immediately to the petitioner.
\nThis order is passed on the basis that on  05.09.2002, the assessing authority
\nhas already recovered an amount of Rs.1,44,160\/- and 14,770\/- as compounding fee
\nwhich is actually a penalty amount payable in the event of the authority coming
\nto a conclusion that there is a power theft. It is not known as to how the
\nfurther amount of Rs.94,592\/- was recovered from the petitioner, while the
\nmatter was pending before the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. The first respondent being Appellate Authority fairly ought not have
\ndirected the petitioner to pay any further amount of compound fees.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. In this view of the matter, there will be a direction to the first
\nrespondent to return the amount of Rs.94,592\/- forthwith to the petitioner.
\nSince the matter is remitted back to the second respondent for proper
\nassessment, this Court directs that in respect of the amount of Rs.1,44,160, and
\nas compounding fee of Rs.14,770\/- paid by the petitioner on 05.09.2002 the same
\nwill be kept with the second respondent, till the completion of the enquiry in a
\nproper manner and a decision about the said amount will be taken in the order
\npassed by the second respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.The above said exercise shall be completed by the second respondent,
\nwithin a period of eight weeks\tfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this
\norder.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. With the above observations, the writ petition  stands allowed.
\nConsequently, the connected W.P.M.P is closed. There is no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
nbk<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The TamilNadu Electricity Board,
\n  Rep by the Superintending Engineer,
\n  Maddurai Electricity Distribution System\/Metro,
\n  K.Pudur, Madurai 1.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Executive Engineer,
\n  South Distribution Division,
\n  Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
\n  Madurai 1.\n<\/p>\n
\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Ms.Ruby Restaurant vs The Tamilnadu Electricity Board on 3 February, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03\/02\/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.No.513 of 2004 and W.P.M.P.No.483 Of 2004 Ms.Ruby Restaurant, Rep by its Proprietor, G.T.George Babu, 94,West Peruamal Maistry Street, Madurai 1. … Petitioner Vs. […]<\/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-258641","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMs.Ruby Restaurant vs The Tamilnadu Electricity Board on 3 February, 2006 - 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\/ms-ruby-restaurant-vs-the-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-3-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ms.Ruby Restaurant vs The Tamilnadu Electricity Board on 3 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ruby-restaurant-vs-the-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-3-february-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-01T16:14:37+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ruby-restaurant-vs-the-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-3-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ruby-restaurant-vs-the-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-3-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ms.Ruby Restaurant vs The Tamilnadu Electricity Board on 3 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-01T16:14:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ruby-restaurant-vs-the-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-3-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1875,\"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\\\/ms-ruby-restaurant-vs-the-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-3-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ruby-restaurant-vs-the-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-3-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ruby-restaurant-vs-the-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-3-february-2006\",\"name\":\"Ms.Ruby Restaurant vs The Tamilnadu Electricity Board on 3 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-01T16:14:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ruby-restaurant-vs-the-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-3-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ruby-restaurant-vs-the-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-3-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ruby-restaurant-vs-the-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-3-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ms.Ruby Restaurant vs The Tamilnadu Electricity Board on 3 February, 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":"Ms.Ruby Restaurant vs The Tamilnadu Electricity Board on 3 February, 2006 - 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\/ms-ruby-restaurant-vs-the-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-3-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ms.Ruby Restaurant vs The Tamilnadu Electricity Board on 3 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ruby-restaurant-vs-the-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-3-february-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-01T16:14:37+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ruby-restaurant-vs-the-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-3-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ruby-restaurant-vs-the-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-3-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ms.Ruby Restaurant vs The Tamilnadu Electricity Board on 3 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-01T16:14:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ruby-restaurant-vs-the-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-3-february-2006"},"wordCount":1875,"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\/ms-ruby-restaurant-vs-the-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-3-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ruby-restaurant-vs-the-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-3-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ruby-restaurant-vs-the-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-3-february-2006","name":"Ms.Ruby Restaurant vs The Tamilnadu Electricity Board on 3 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-01T16:14:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ruby-restaurant-vs-the-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-3-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ruby-restaurant-vs-the-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-3-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ruby-restaurant-vs-the-tamilnadu-electricity-board-on-3-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ms.Ruby Restaurant vs The Tamilnadu Electricity Board on 3 February, 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\/258641","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=258641"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258641\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=258641"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=258641"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=258641"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}