Disposed

Kalpathi S Aghoram v. The Commissioner

Madras HC1 Feb 2021WP/1648/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

By consent, the High Court took up these writ petitions at the admission stage. The Court directed the second respondent to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's claim within six months and restrained recovery action for the specified period.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent directed to pass orders on merits within six months; recovery action restrained for April 1 to September 30, 2020.

Kalpathi S Aghoram Vs The Commissioner — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.02.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

W.P.Nos.1648 & 1649 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.1858 & 1866 of 2021

¶6

Kalpathi S Aghoram
... Petitioner in W.P.No.1648 of 2021
Kalpathi S Ganesh
.. Petitioner in W.P.No.1649 of 2021
vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Chennai.
2.The Zonal Officer,
Zone – 9, Greater Chennai Corporation,
Chennai.
3.AGS Cinemas Pvt.Ltd.,
represented by its Director,
Access House,
No.24, Judge Jumbulingam Road,
Mylapore,
Chennai 600 004
... Respondents in
W.P.No.1648 of 2021
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Chennai.
2.The Zonal Officer,
Zone – 11, Greater Chennai Corporation,
Chennai.
3.AGS Cinemas Pvt.Ltd.,
represented by its Director,
Access House,
No.24, Judge Jumbulingam Road,
Mylapore,
Chennai 600 004
.. Respondents in
W.P.No.1649 of 2021

¶7

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

¶8

Prayer in both W.Ps.: Writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders in the claim dated 05.11.2020 filed by the petitioner, within a time frame and consequently restrain the respondents 1 and 2, their subordinates, men, agents and any other men claiming under them, from initiating recovery action for the property tax payable by the petitioner for the period 1/2020, i.e. 1.4.2020 till 30.09.2020, till the disposal of the petitioner's claim dated 05.11.2020.

¶9

For petitioners : M/s. Bhagavath krishnan

¶10

(In both W.Ps.) For R1 & R2 : M/s.Vaideeswari (In both W.Ps.) Standing Counsel

¶11

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶12

By consent, these Writ Petitions are taken up and for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶13

2. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondent to consider and pass orders in the claim dated 05.11.2020 filed by the petitioner, within a time frame and consequently restrain the respondents 1 and 2, their subordinates, men, agents and any other men claiming under them, from initiating recovery action for the property tax payable by the petitioner for the period 1/2020, i.e. 1.4.2020 till 30.09.2020, till the disposal of the petitioner's claim dated 05.11.2020.

¶14

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that appropriate orders will be passed on the representation of the petitioner dated 05.11.2020.

¶15

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, the second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on merits, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

5. These writ petitions are disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

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

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

To 1.The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai. 2.The Zonal Officer, Zone – 9, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai. 3.The Zonal Officer, Zone – 11, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai. +2ccs to M/s.Vaideeswari , Advocate SR.No. 5315,5314 +2ccs to Mr.Srinath sridevan , Advocate SR.No. 5124,5125 W.P.Nos.1648 & 1649 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.1858 & 1866 of 2021 A.SK(17.02.2021).

¶23

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

Kalpathi S Aghoram v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalpathi S Aghoram 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

Kaling Vanidhya (H.U.F.) Vs the Union of India

M/S. the White Light Group, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

The Commissioner of Customs Vs Pitchai Karuppiah

M/s. Texcity Software Parks Vs Principal Commissioner of

V.Lakshmi, Vs The Chief Secretary

Chennai Vazh Sattankulam Vs The Commissioner