Dismissed

N.v.Rukmani Bai, v. the Commissioner of

Madras HC17 Jan 2013WP/617/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a property tax demand notice. It held that the petitioner has a statutory right to appeal to the Taxation Appeal Tribunal. The petition was disposed of, permitting the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal remedy.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; the petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal before the Taxation Appeal Tribunal within two weeks.

N.v.Rukmani Bai, Vs the Commissioner of — Property and Title | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 17.1.2013

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR

¶5

W.P.No.617 of 2011 and

¶6

M.P.No.2 of 2011

¶7

N.V.Rukmani Bai, ... Petitioner Vs. The Commissioner of Corporation of Chennai, Chennai-600 003. ... Respondent

¶8

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari after calling for the records of Status of Property Tax payment dated nil for the periods from 1993 to 2011 as declared by the respondent and quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.V.Ramamurthy For Respondent : Mr.V.Bharathidasan. O R D E R

¶10

This writ petition has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari after calling for the records of Status of Property Tax payment dated nil for the periods from 1993 to 2011 as declared by the respondent and quash the same.

¶11

Heard Mr.S.V.Ramamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Bharathidasan, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶12

The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the property tax demand notice by the Corporation of Chennai. Petitioner is entitled to file an appeal before the Appellate Forum, namely, Taxation Appeal Tribunal notified in terms of Rule 12(2) of the Taxation Rules under Schedule IV of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. Accordingly, petitioner is at liberty to pursue the appeal remedy. The appeal shall be filed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

At the time of admission, by order dated 12.1.2011, this court passed the following interim order:-

¶15

“Ms.R.K.Kalpana, the learned counsel, takes notice for the respondent. There shall be an order of interim stay, subject to the condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.20,000/(Rupees Twenty Thousand) to the respondent within a period of two weeks from today, failing which, this order would stand cancelled, automatically, without any further reference to this Court.”

¶16

The above interim order shall continue till the disposal of the appeal. The appeal shall be admitted without raising the plea of limitation for the above stated reason. If the petitioner fails to file appeal within a period of two weeks as above, then the authority is at liberty to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. 5. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The original notice if filed to be returned on proper acknowledgement Sd/Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar ts To The Commissioner of Corporation of Chennai, Chennai-600 003. + 1 cc to Mr.S.V.Ramamurthy , Advocate SR No.2935 + 1 cc to Mr.V.Bharathidasan , Advocate SR No.3042 W.P.No.617 of 2011 tm(co) nr 21/13

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

N.v.Rukmani Bai, v. the Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.v.Rukmani Bai, v. the Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jameel Trading Company Vs the Appellate Assistant

Transstroy (India) Limited, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

M/S.Srilakshmi Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

M/S.Anmol Rajendra Parcel Vs the Deputy Commercial Tax

Thiru.G.Govindasamy, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

M.R.Uma Maheswari Vs the District Collector