W.A.No.2181 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.07.2026 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.A.No.2181 of 2026 and C.M.P.No.18944 of 2026 1.The Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited (TNPDCL) Rep by its Chairman, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Director/Technical 10th Floor, Western Wing, TNGECL, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002 3.The Superintending Engineer Udumalaipet Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited Tirupur Road, Udumalpet-642126 Appellants Vs 1.M/s.Uma Maheshwari Textiles Rep. by its Director Rajeswaran Mani, No.16/117, Annamarsamy Kovil Road, Anumanthapuram, Vellakovil, Tirupur-638 111 ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2181 of 2026 2.M/s.KCP Packagings Ltd BMG SC No.001, Marchanaikenpalayam Village, Ambarampalayam, Pollachi-642 103 Respondents PRAYER : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No19962 of 2026, dated 20.05.2026. For Appellant(s): Mr.T.Gowthaman Addl. Advocate General for Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar For Respondent(s):Mr.J.Ravindran Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Dhalapathy Vignesh Kumar for R1 JUDGMENT (Delivered by G.Arul Murugan, J.) The appellants have preferred this intra-Court appeal challenging the order dated 20.05.2026 passed in W.P.No.19962 of 2026, whereby the writ petition came to be allowed by directing the Chief Engineer, NCES, TNGECL, Chennai to transfer the service connection bearing No.039224340960 to the name of the first respondent/writ petitioner without any delay, so as to enable it to pay the sum of Rs.30.00 lakhs as per the order dated 5.3.2026 passed in W.M.P.No.9218 of 2026 in ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2181 of 2026 W.P.No.8515 of 2026. 2. Shri T.Gowthaman, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants, contended that the first respondent/writ petitioner has purchased the property in the SARFAESI auction and it had submitted an application seeking for the electricity service connection to be transferred to its name. Since there was outstanding dues in respect of the electricity service connection to the tune of Rs.1,21,05,729/-, the application of the first respondent was rejected vide order dated 30.01.2026. The said order was assailed by the first respondent in W.P.No.8515 of 2026, where, by an interim order dated 05.03.2026, the first respondent was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.30.00 lakhs with the second appellant herein and the appellants were directed not to disconnect the electricity service connection. 3. It is the further contention of learned Additional Advocate General that, while such an order is already in force, the first respondent had filed another writ petition, being W.P.No.19962 of 2026, seeking very same relief and the writ court, by the impugned order dated 20.5.2026, allowed the writ petition directing the Chief Engineer, NCES, TNGECL, Chennai to transfer the service connection ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2181 of 2026 No.039224340960, which is already the subject matter pending before this Court in W.P.No.8515 of 2026. In such circumstances, the impugned order could not have been passed and seeks for interference by this Court. 4. Contending contra, Shri J.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner, submitted that the interim order passed in W.P.No.8515 of 2026 has nothing to do with the impugned order passed in W.P.No.19962 of 2026 whereby the name transfer was allowed, as in W.P.No.8515 of 2026 only an interim order to make a conditional deposit was issued and since the appellant Board did not agree to receive the payment and the first respondent could make payment only after effecting the name transfer, it resulted in filing W.P.No.19962 of 2026, where the writ court, after considering the first respondent’s grievance, allowed the writ petition and the said order is perfectly justified and needs no interference. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2181 of 2026 6. It is not in dispute that the first respondent is a purchaser of the property in the auction sale conducted by the bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. On such purchase, the first respondent had submitted an application seeking transfer of electricity service connection bearing No.039224340960 to its name and the said application came to be rejected by the second appellant herein by an order dated 30.01.2026 on the ground that there is outstanding due payable by the earlier consumer to the tune of Rs.1,21,05,729/-. 7. Assailing the order dated 30.01.2026, the first respondent had preferred W.P.No.8515 of 2026 with a consequential relief to direct the appellants to process the first respondent’s representation for service connection/name transfer and to restrain the appellant Board from disconnecting the service connection. The writ court, by an order dated 05.03.2026 in W.M.P.No.9218 of 2026 in W.P.No.8515 of 2026, had passed the following order: “2. Considering a prima-facie case made out by the petitioner, there shall be a direction to the respondents not to disconnect the electricity service connection till the next date of hearing on condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) with the 2nd respondent by way of demand draft within a period of six ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2181 of 2026 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 8. Considering the grievances expressed and while the writ petition (W.P.No.8515 of 2026) was pending, the writ court by an interim order protected the rights of the first respondent by passing a conditional order to pay the sum of Rs.30.00 lakhs by which the appellants were directed not to disconnect the electricity service connection. The other issue regarding name transfer and the contention of the appellants whether the first respondent would be entitled for such a service connection are to be decided in the pending writ petition. 9. At this stage, the first respondent had filed W.P.No.19662 of 2026, in fact, seeking similar relief of transfer of the name of the service connection No.039224340960 for the very same property to the name of the first respondent. The writ court, by an order dated 20.05.2026, after observing the interim order passed in W.P.No.8515 of 2026, had allowed the writ petition (W.P.No.19962 of 2026) by directing the appellant Board to effect name transfer of the service connection and allowed the first respondent to comply with the conditional order by depositing a sum of Rs.30.00 lakhs as directed in ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2181 of 2026 W.P.No.8515 of 2026. 10. In our considered opinion, when the entire issue as to whether the first respondent was entitled to name transfer is subject matter of consideration in W.P.No.8515 of 2026, the necessity for filing the subsequent petition, viz., W.P.No.19962 of 2026, does not arise. When already the first respondent was protected with an interim order, it is for the first respondent to make deposit of Rs.30.00 lakhs and comply with the condition to continue with the electricity service connection. The order impugned in the present appeal, whereby the appellant Board was directed to transfer the service connection to the name of the first respondent would, in effect, nullify the relief sought in W.P.No.8515 of 2026. Even if the appellants have refused to receive the amount, it was open to the first respondent to file an application before the writ court seeking clarification or to file necessary application/contempt petition. This, however, cannot be ground to come up with a fresh writ petition seeking similar relief. In such circumstances, the impugned order directing the appellant Board to effect name transfer cannot be countenanced and it needs to be interfered with. ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2181 of 2026 11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.05.2026 passed in W.P.No.19962 of 2026 is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. 12. At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that even though they are ready to deposit the amount, the appellant Board is not willing to receive the same. However, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants submits that if the conditional order is complied with by making payment, the same could be received by the appellants, of course subject to the outcome of W.P.No.8515 of 2026. The said submission of learned Additional Advocate General is recorded. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 29.07.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No bbr ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2181 of 2026 To: 1.The Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited (TNPDCL) Rep by its Chairman, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Director/Technical 10th Floor, Western Wing, TNGECL, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002 3.The Superintending Engineer Udumalaipet Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited Tirupur Road, Udumalpet-642126 ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2181 of 2026 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN, J. bbr W.A.No.2181 of 2026 29.07.2026 ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis