A Single Judge Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, has observed in the case of Subburaj Cotton Mills (P) Limited v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited & Ors. that Petitioner should pay the money in installments to the Respondent in view of the pandemic because the Petitioner was facing financial impediments.
“There shall be a direction to the petitioner to pay the Additional Security Deposit, claimed by the second respondent in six equal monthly installments.”
Background of the Case
In this case, the petitioner requested for payment of an Additional Security Deposit of Rs.1,07,76,462/- (Rupees One Crore Seven Lakhs Seventy-Six Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Two only) in 10 equal monthly installments. The petitioner was having the High Tension Service Connection of which he had to pay a security amount of Rs.1,07,76,462/- in one lump sum. Thus, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents to pay the money in the installments but the same was not considered.
Therefore, this Writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to pay the Additional Security Deposit of Rs.1,07,76,462/- along in 10 equal monthly installments along with the regular current consumption charges.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
The Court considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and noticed that the same issues were previously raised in several cases in which this Court had considered the repercussions of the Pandemic.
The Court held that,
“the Additional Security Deposit to be paid in six equal monthly installments. The same order will also ensure to the benefit of the petitioner since the second wave of "Corona" has virtually continued the pandemic situation and it is getting worse by the day.”
Therefore, the Court disposed of the petition without imposing any cost on it and issued directions to the Respondent that If in case, the petitioner defaults in making the payment, it is always open to the respondents to initiate action in accordance with the law.
Case Details
Case: - W.P.(MD).No.9006 of 2021
Petitioner: - Nivash VairavanathaSubburaj Cotton Mills (P) Limited, HTSC 059
Respondent: - The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Generation, and Distribution Corporation Limited & Ors
Counsel for Petitioner: - Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj
Counsel for Respondent: - Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha
Judge: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :
Picture Source :
