AKSOL CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the above civil revision petition filed a suit in OS.No.56 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ranipet against the respondents herein for a declaration declaring the electricity bill of the plaintiff company dated 25.3.2006 issued by the defendants as illegal, null and void so far as it relates to the arrears of S.C.No.146 and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants and subordinates from disconnecting the schedule mentioned service connection of the plaintiff pursuant to the above said bill.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner in the plaint is that the plaintiff company is carrying on a chemical industry at their factory. THE second defendant issued a notice dated 6.3.2006 to one Mr.A.Murugesan, one of the Directors of the plaintiff company calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs.86,020/- towards monthly minimum shortfall amount pertaining to S.C.No.146 owned by M/s.Crescent Paper Industries at No.74, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ranipet within seven days, failing which, the same will be added in S.C.No.146 of M/s.Aksol Chemicals Private Limited " the plaintiff . THE third defendant included the above said amount due from M/s.Crescent Paper Industries in the bill of M/s.Aksol Chemicals Private Limited dated 25.3.2006. THE said action of the third defendant was challenged on the ground that simply because one of the Directors of the plaintiff company is also one of the partners in M/s.Crescent Paper Industries, the electricity bill payable by M/s.Crescent Paper Industries cannot be fastened on the plaintiff company. THErefore, the aforesaid reliefs have been sought for.

(3.) MR.N.S.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decision rendered in 2003 (3) MLJ 632 (cited supra) has no relevance to the facts of this case. Placing reliance on the following decisions : "i. Messers Selvakumar Rice and Oil Mills, Salem by its Partner R.S.Gunasekaran (reported in 1987 (I) MLJ 32); and ii. Smt.S.B.Hussain, M/s.Bilal Hussain & Co. Vs. The Assistant Accounts Officer, Revenue Unit, TNEB, Vaniambadi, Tirupattur and Others (1993 (2) MLJ 142)," learned counsel submitted that the ad valorem Court fee need not be paid and the court fee paid under Section 25(d) of the said Act is correct.