S.R.Venkatraman
05 May 2013 at 00:33
In a judgement to a writ filed by the trespassers/Petitioner against myself and the Asst.Engineer-T.N.E.B-Respondents at the Madras High Court, for issue of electricity in their name(in my survey number) to which I had objected and also sent a legal notice to the Asst.Engineer-T.N.E.B not to grant any permission for electrical connection to the trespassers/petitioner in my land survey number which they have illegally occupied and also illegally constructed a small shed with the help of local police. The petitioner/Trespassers had illegally registered the sale deed using bogus 'patta' and other forged documents.
While the Judge had observed that the petitioner/trespasser has not established his legal rights over the property due to the registration of bogus documents, he has instructed the Asst.Engineer-T.N.E.B to use discretion in granting a 'temporary' electrical connection to the trespassers/petitioner in my land survey number under section 27(2) of provision of essential services which he has observed a 'Basic Civic Right' of an individual and that such right should not be denied.
This is highly ridiculous and mockery of interpretation of a law under Indian judicial system as it is very clear that the petitioner/trespasser does not hold any rights over the property or has any clear title to the property - when this is the case where is the question of denial of provision of essential services under section 27(2) under provision of essential services act??
It is most disheartening to note the deliberate or otherwise error on the part of the judge in coming to conclusions without proper verification of land document of both the sides.
I now fear, whether my right over the property will be ultimately denied to me due to the fact that the opposite side is using money and influence to their benefit and that they may claim 'possession' over my land.
I would like to know whether I will be seriously affected by such a ruling? or
Whether this ruling is to my advantage?
Anandakrishnan V Iyer
03 May 2013 at 16:10
Dear Sir
We are a Merchant Exporters and dealers from April 1st 2013 we are into excise We charge excise in all our sales within India. What are the rules for Export Sales. We are told no excise is to be levied if the goods are exported. We are not manufacturers but first stage dealers. Can your goodself guide us regarding this and also regarding the documents.............Thanking You Anandakrishnan v
Rajesh
01 May 2013 at 14:03
We are a pvt.ltd company and tax intelligence found that we have not registered as per K vat and they have asked us to pay Rs.6,20,000/- as compounding fee for 2010-11 & 2012-13 and the same we have paid ...and we have got registration also..
Now the sales tax people said that we need to pay the same amount again along with the balance tax whatever .........
We doubt that , whether we need to pay the double amount ------can you just clarify the doubt and help us at the earliest.
We are having receipts of the same ...we are a construction company and selling Villas -- work awarded to a contractor.
Rajesh
sud
26 April 2013 at 09:51
Is service tax applicable on school ERP solutions , wherein the software is installed and maintained for the benefit of students and parents to view and interact with the school on various activities of school, assignments, report cards, attendance etc.
Does it come under services provided to and by educational institutions?
AJIT KAWATKAR
21 April 2013 at 11:39
as per interim order I as respondent deposited the desputed amount in co op court in Mumbai in 2003 in 2012 desputent socty & respondent agreed to settele issue in which respondent consented to give up the deposited amount to socity.
it is said now a days with the ordes of RBI do not issue chq but use ECS option.
I would require the procedure & time taken to release the amount.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Explain clause 27(2) under essential services act
on coming to understand that a trespasser had created forged documents using false survey number had applied for electrical connection quoting my survey number and in my vacant residential land, I had immediately written to the Assistant Engineer of T.N.E.B not to provide any electrical connection in the name of the trespasser who was trying to grab my land with false documents.I had enclosed copies of all my documents, the vacant land tax receipt, my police complaints against the trespasser and the F.I.R filed against him. Accordingly,the A.E also refused permission to the trespasser citing these grounds - immediately, the trespasser had filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court in which he had deliberately dragged my uncle(When I had launched all the objections as the owner of the land) who is not at all in any way involved in this and also the A.E. T.N.E.B as respondents.
Under normal judicial process, the writ itself ought to have been dismissed by the court due to the wrong person involved rather than me, but surprisingly the judge had taken up the matter and passed a very ridiculous order which states that "the petitioner(trespasser)in no way established his title rights over the disputed property". However it surprisingly instructs the Asst.Engineer, T.N.E.B to use discretion as to whether a temporary electrical connection could be granted or not because any essential service like an electrical connection is the basic right of any individual under Section 27(2)of Essential Services Act and this being so, the trespasser is entitled for an electrical connection - the judgement of an High Court Judge is all the more ridiculous because, at the very start of his judgement the judge has observed that the petitioner(trespasser) has not established his title right over the property - This being the case, how he can be given such a service that too in a property that belongs to me?? - The judgement should have been that I as the owner of the property should not be denied such a right!!!
More surprising and shocking is that the judge concludes his judgement by stating that the petitioner(trespasser)cannot claim any ownership or possession of the property merely due to receiving a temporary electrical connection in his name.
Does it not go to show the extent of rot in our judicial system in which such a ridiculous and laughable judgement could be passed by an High Court Judge???!!!!!!!!
I understand that I have an opportunity to appeal against this judgement at Madras High Court itself.
I would like to know from eminent jurists in this forum as to what course of action I must take to get this judgement reversed - I am sure you all agree with me.
Thanks.