An applicant sought to modify an annual license fee of Rs. 1 crore fixed for a temple, citing COVID-19 restrictions. The court examined the respondent's report stating the temple remained open for specific services and that the applicant was in default of payments, leading to the dismissal of the application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)
FRIDAY, THE 03rd DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
A.No.3607 of 2021 in A. No.1866 of 2021 in C.S.No.177 of 1939
George VI by the Grace of God of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith Emperor of India.
In the matter of the Madras Ordinance Pensioned Luscars Charities.
1.S.Angamuthu Pillai a pensioned Havildar Now employed in the Madras Electric Tramways, residing at No.21, Mylappa Gramani Street Chinna Chembarampakkam, Perambur Madras
2.T.Ponnuswamy Pillai a pensioned Lancenaique Residing at No.16, Cox Street, No.1, Chintadripet, Madras
3.P.Krishnaswami Pillai a pensioned lancenaigue Residing at No.46, Ponnuswami Naicken Street Srinivasapuram, Royapettah
4.N.Ponnusami, pensioned lascar
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Residing at 4th Street, Katpada Old Washermanpet, Madras
2
5.Marian, pensioned Lascar employed in the Office of the Madras Medical Council and Residing at No.17, Stringers Street Naval Hospital Road, Periamet, Madras
*Plaintiffs 1 and 2 struck off from the Above cause title as per order of 19342 in Application No.702 of 1942 ...Plaintiffs
Vs.
1.S.Govindarajoo Mudaliar (since deceased (**)
2.R.Madurai Pillai (**)
3.P.C.Umapathi Pillai (**)
(**) Defendants 1 to 3 struck out as per order of Court dated 24.10.1939 in Application No.2311 of 1939
4.C.Maria doss, pensioned Havildar Now Watchman, Madras Harbour Residing at Transport Line Pudupet, Mount Road Post, Madras
5.V.Angappa Mudali (since deceased) (***)
6.M.Ramaswami Nayakkar (***)
(***)Defendants 5 and 6 struck out as per order of court dated 24.10.1939 in Application No.2311 of 1939
7.C.Kattayya, a pensioned Jamadar Residing at No.5, Aryan Lane Vepery High Road, Vepery Madras
8.M.Chokkalingam, a pensioned Havildar and
Now employed in Bosotto, residing at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ South Koliyanur Amman Koil Street Chintadripet, Madras
3
9.R.Ponnuswami, pensioned Lascar now employed
in the Office of the Madras Tramways and Residing at No.18, Coovum River Road Chintadripet, Madras
10.K.Muniswami, pensioned Lascar now a watchman in the Christian Vernacular Literature Society, residing at No.14, Ritchie Street, Narasingapuram, Mount Road Post, Madras
11.V.Ponnuswami, pensioned lascar residing at No.1/4, Cox Street, No.1, Chintadripet, Madras
12.P.S.Tangavelu, pensioned Lascar residing at Padavattamman Koil Street, Chintadripet Madras
13.K.Paramasiva Samiar, pensioned Lascar Residing at Padavattamman Koil Street Chintadripet, Madras.
14.B.Krishnavelu Residing at No.84, Padavattamman Koil Sreet, Chintadripet, Madras
15.G.R.Seshachalam, pensioned Naick Residing at Naval Hospital Road Vepery, Madras
16.R.Ranganatham Pillai Residing at No.67, Harris Road, Pudupet, Madras
17.C.Solaiappan, pensioned Naick Residing at Seshachariar Street Varadarajapuram, Mount Road
18.R.Arokiasami, pensioned Naick Residing at No.10, Thulukkanam Street, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Varadarajapuram, Mount Road
4
19.Sayyid Karim, pensioned Sepoy Residing at Adam Sahib Street Royapuram, Madras. 20.The Madras Ordinance Pensioned Luscar Charities a Society registered under Act XXI of 1860 by its Secretary R.Ponnusamy Having its Registered Office at No.1/12, Cox Street, Chintadripet, Madras Defendants 20 added as party defendant As per order of court dated 21.11.1939 in Application No.2001 of 1939 ...Defendants A.Nos.1866 and 3607 of 2021 :- K.Lalitha W/o. Krishnamoorthy No.4/1, Nainyappa Street, Chindaripet, Chennai 600 002. : Applicant/Third Party -vsThe Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu High Court, Chennai 600 104. ... Respondent A.No.3607 of 2021 :-
Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to modify
the annual licence fee a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- excluding 18% GST fixed by this Court in A.No.1866 of 2021 dated 30.04.2021 as per above calculation for the licence period May 2021 to April 2022 by considering the prevailing pandemic situation and restriction.
This Application coming on this day before this court for hearing
in the presence of Mr.D.Suresh, Advocate for the Applicant herein and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr.S.Raju for the Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamil
5
Nadu, respondent herein, appearing in person, and upon reading the
Judge's Summons and the affidavit of K.Lalitha filed herein and the report of the Official trustee of Tamilnadu filed herein and it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the applicant has committed default in paying the licence fee and as of today a sum of Rs.43,45,697/is due and payable by the applicant. In the report of the Official Trustee, it has been stated that the applicant's prayer for reduction of the licence fee is not justified and taking into consideration the report filed by the Official Trustee, this Court is not inclined to modify the order passed on 30.04.2021, it is ordered:-
That the application in A.No.3607 of 2021 be and is hereby dismissed.
WITNESS THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT AT MADRAS AFORESAID, THIS THE 03rd DAY OF DECEMBER 2021.
Sd./-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (O.S.II)
//Certified to be true copy//
Dated at Madras this the day of 2022.
COURT OFFICER(O.S.)
From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.
6
KY 16.12.2021
A.No.3607 of 2021 in A. No.1866 of 2021 in C.S.No.177 of 1939
ORDER :-
DATED:03.12.2021
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
FOR APPROVAL: 21.01.2022
APPROVED ON : 24.01.2022
7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 03.12.2021
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
Application No. 3607 of 2021 in Application No. 1866 of 2021 in C.S.No.177 of 1939
K.Lalitha ... Applicant
Vs.
The Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu, High Court Campus, Chennai-600 104.
... Respondent
Application filed and Judge's Summons issued under Order XIV
Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to modify the annual licence fee a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- excluding 18% GST fixed by this Court in A.No.1866 of 2021 dated 30.04.2021 as per above calculation for the licence period May 2021 to April 2022 by considering the prevailing pandemic situation and restriction.
For Applicant : Mr.D.Suresh For Respondent : Mr.S.Raju, Administrator General & Official Trustee
O R D E R
8
The applicant has filed the above application to modify the annual licence fee of Rs.1,00,00,000/- excluding 18% GST fixed by this Court in A.No.1866 of 2021 dated 30.04.2021 for the licence period May 2021 to April 2022.
2.In the affidavit filed in support of the Judge's Summons, the applicant has stated that due to Covid-19 Pandemic, the temple was totally closed during May 2021 and June 2021 and therefore, the licence fee of Rs.1,00,00,000/- may be reduced.
3.The Administrator General and Official Trustee filed a report
dated 25.11.2021 wherein it has been stated as follows:
“The Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu has read over the
affidavit of Mrs. K.Lalitha supported with Judge’s Summon. The applicant has filed the present application to modify the annual license fee a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- excluding 18% GST fixed by this Hon’ble Court in A.No.1866 of 2021 dated 30.04.2021.
2.The Official Trustee does not dispute about the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ CORONA-19 lock down w.e.f. 25.03.2020. The Major
9
Temples under the control of HR & CE was closed for public access during the initial period of CORONA-19 lock down. The subject Temple is not coming under HR & CE and it is a small temple where the applicant was given a license to conduct pooja and collect Hundi collections and pay license fee to the respondent. The earlier license period ended with 30.04.2021.
3.The Official Trustee further submits that even during the CORONA-19 lock down the subject temple was open and public were allowed to worship and conduct pooja. Last year also the Official Trustee himself inspected the subject temple on 21.05.2020 when he was proceeding to the office and found that the subject temple was open and public were allowed to worship. When enquired with the staff available at the temple with regard to pooja to be conducted to a Car they stated that Rs.350/- is the charge to conduct pooja to the Car. Immediately, the Official Trustee has prepared the inspection report and put it in the office file.
4.The Official Trustee further submits that when
10
contacted the applicant’s husband i.e. Mr.V.Krishnamoorthy
over a phone by the staff of AG & OT with regard to how the temple was opened and the public were allowed to worship. To that he replied that since the pooja to the police vehicles to be conducted the temple was opened. It may be right or wrong but fact remain that the temple was open even during the lock down period. In this aspects, the facts stated in paras 7 & 9 is strongly denied by the respondent.
5.The Official Trustee further submits that the other facts found in paras 1 to 6 are matter of records. Further, there are about 600 tenants under the respondent for residential and non-residential purpose. Most of the tenants have made oral requests to waive the rent for CORONA-19 lock down period. Some of the tenants made written requests on the similar line. Considering the object of the charity to be done, and even during the CORONA-19 lock down period, the Official Trustee done various kinds of charities across the state and their requests were rejected with oral as well as written respectively. Considering the same, the request of the applicant cannot be allowed. If the
request of the applicant is allowed, taking advantage of the
11
same, the other tenants would approach either the Official
Trustee of this Hon’ble Court for waiver and it would make
heavy work load and also loss to the trust. Therefore, the applicant has to pay the license fee for the period 01.05.2021 to 30.04.2022 without any modification of period or proportionate amount as claimed by the applicant.
6.The Official Trustee further humbly submits that this Hon’ble Court in A.No. 1866 of 2021 dated 30.04.2021 was pleased to extent the lease for a period of one year from 01.05.2021 to 30.04.2022. As per the orders of this Hon’ble Court the applicant ought to pay the lease amount in 4 equal monthly installments at the rate of Rs.25,00,000/- in every three months along with proportionate G.S.T. The applicant had failed to honour the orders of this Hon’ble Court and had failed to pay two installments less amount of Rs.15,54,206/- leaving a balance amount of Rs. 43,45,697/.”C
4.On a perusal of the report submitted by the Official Trustee, it
could be seen that this Court extended the lease period for one year from
01.05.2021 to 30.04.2022, permitting the applicant to pay the licence fee
12
in four equal quarterly installments of Rs.25,00,000/- each.
5.It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the applicant has
committed default in paying the licence fee and as of today a sum of Rs.43,45,697/- is due and payable by the applicant. In the report of the Official Trustee, it has been stated that the applicant's prayer for reduction of the licence fee is not justified.
6.Taking into consideration the report filed by the Official Trustee,
this Court is not inclined to modify the order passed on 30.04.2021. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
Sd./-M.D.J 03.12.2021
//Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2022.
COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the annual license fee fixed for a temple should be modified due to the prevailing pandemic situation.
Whether the applicant's claim for fee reduction is justified in light of her default in paying previous installments.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K. Lalitha
The Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu
M. Duraismamy
Munishwar Nath Bhandari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
