Disposed

Tmt.Shanthi @ Shanthalakshmi, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC26 Jul 2018WP/8599/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a property tax demand notice issued in the name of a third respondent during pending title suits. The court held that the tax payment does not affect the civil court's decision on title and accordingly disposed of the writ petition without interfering with the tax liability under the pendency of the decree.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs; the respondent corporation may act in accordance with law subject to the pending civil court decree.

Tmt.Shanthi @ Shanthalakshmi, Vs The Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 26.07.2018

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.8599 of 2018

¶6

and

¶7

W.M.P.No.10530 of 2018

¶8

Tmt.Shanthi @ Shanthalakshmi ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Building, Chennai - 600 003. 2. The Asst. Revenue Officer, Revenue Department, Zonal Office IX, Corporation of Chennai, No.1, Lake Area, 4th Cross Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. 3. S.Khader Mohideen ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned demand-cum-final warrant notice vide Ref.Ma.a.9/Va.Thu.Na.Ka.No.R1/DN-123/2018 dated 01.03.2018 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the 2nd respondent to restore the property tax assessment entry in the name of the original assessee T.N.Kanniappan, forthwith in respect of the petitioner's house property bearing Door No.22/98, Thiruvalluvar Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Murthy For Respondents : Mrs.Karthika Ashok, for R1 & R2 Standing Counsel for Chennai Corporation.

¶10

Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed, for R3

¶11

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

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Heard Mr.D.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.Karthika Ashok, learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶14

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the final warrant notice vide Ref.Ma.a.9/Va.Thu.Na.Ka.No.R1/DN-123/2018 dated 01.03.2018, issued by the respondent corporation in the name of the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner would submit that the original assessee was Mr.T.N.Kanniappan and the title suits are pending in O.S.No.12848 of 2010 and O.S.No. 5244 of 2013 before the VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, and demand in the name of 3^rd respondent, is illegal.

¶15

During the pendency of the writ petition, the 3^rd respondent has cleared the entire arrears of Rs.14,072.91, which has been accepted by the respondent corporation. The question is whether this demand made by the 3^rd respondent would in any manner affect the rights of the petitioner before the Civil Court.

¶16

The petitioner need not have any apprehension in this regard, because, regardless of the payment of the property tax, the title suits would be decided by the Civil Court, based on the oral and documentary evidence that will be placed before the trial Court. The 3^rd respondent cannot take advantage of the payment made by him, during the civil proceedings.

¶17

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Needless to state that subject to the decree that may be passed in the Civil Court, the respondent corporation may act in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶20

//True copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

ars/mkn

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Building, Chennai - 600 003. 2. The Asst. Revenue Officer, Revenue Department, Zonal Office IX, Corporation of Chennai, No.1, Lake Area, 4th Cross Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. +1cc to Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed, Advocate SR.No.51033 +1cc to Mr.A.Karthika Ashok, Advocate SR.No.50603 W.P.No.8599 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.10530 of 2018 GN(06/08/2018)

¶26

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

Tmt.Shanthi @ Shanthalakshmi, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tmt.Shanthi @ Shanthalakshmi, v. The Commissioner

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

K.Senthamaraikannan Vs S.Basker

Shri Dhanalakshmi Irons, Vs The State Tax Officer

M/s.Chennai Steel Company Vs State Tax officer(Fac)

M/s.Raymix Concrete India Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Smt.C.Devaki Vs The Commissioner (Excise)

Kovai Medical Centre Research Vs the Executive Officer