Petitioner Vs. Respondent

Petitioner vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Jun 23, 2016

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1190275

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1190275
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: T. Raja
Decided On: Jun 23, 2016
Case Number: W.P(MD).No. 11132 of 2016 & W.M.P.(MD).No. 8549 of 2016
Subject: Electricity

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Electricity

Key legal issue: Electricity

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Petitioner

Respondent

Excerpt

t. raja,j. 1. the interesting prayer made in this writ petition is that when the petitioner, namely, sri amarvathi spinning mills made an application to the respondents to reduce his kva due to recession in their production activity, the superintending engineer, karur electricity distribution circle, tangedco, karur, has refused to entertain their request citing an impracticable reason that a writ petition in w.p.(md).no.8572 of 2011 is pending before this court, whereas, the said writ petition was disposed of, in favour of the petitioner, as early as on 20.02.2016. the petitioner again renewed his request stating that their production has drastically come to an end due to various other reasons, yet, the request of the petitioner has not been considered forcing the petitioner to come before this court. 2. hence, notice through court as well as privately returnable by 06.07.2016.

Full Judgment

T. Raja,J.

1. The interesting prayer made in this Writ Petition is that when the petitioner, namely, Sri Amarvathi Spinning Mills made an application to the respondents to reduce his KVA due to recession in their production activity, the Superintending Engineer, Karur Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Karur, has refused to entertain their request citing an impracticable reason that a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.8572 of 2011 is pending before this Court, whereas, the said Writ Petition was disposed of, in favour of the petitioner, as early as on 20.02.2016. The petitioner again renewed his request stating that their production has drastically come to an end due to various other reasons, yet, the request of the petitioner has not been considered forcing the petitioner to come before this Court.

2. Hence, notice through Court as well as privately returnable by 06.07.2016.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2016 Same Parties Petitioner vs Respondent Same Subject Electricity Same Judge T. Raja