Dismissed

K. Durairaj v. Tiruchirapalli City Corporation Rep. by Its

Madras HC3 Nov 2022CONT P(MD)/905/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge dismissed a contempt petition filed against the 2nd respondent Assistant Commissioner for allegedly adjusting property tax over a period exceeding six years in a receipt. The judge held the issue is not suitable for contempts and must be agitated in the main writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was dismissed on the ground that the issue should be agitated in the main writ petition.

K. Durairaj Vs Tiruchirapalli City Corporation Rep. by Its — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CONT.P.(MD)No.905 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.11.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

CONT.P.(MD)No.905 of 2021 in W.P(MD)No.8865 of 2021

¶7

K. Durairaj, 2. K. Balraj, 3. K. Rajendran,

¶8

: Petitioners Vs

¶9

Tiruchirapalli City Corporation, represented by Its, Commissioner, Corporation Buildings, Bharathidasan Salai, Tiruchirappalli - 620 001

¶10

Vinoth, The Assistant Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli City Corporation, K. Abieshakapuram Zone, Puthur, Tiruchirapalli - 17

¶11

: Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 10 of the Contempt of

¶13

Page 1 of 4

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

CONT.P.(MD)No.905 of 2021

¶16

Courts Act, to punish the 2nd respondents/contemnors for the contempt that they have committed violating the order passed by this Division Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.(MD).NO.8865 of 2021 in W.M.P. (MD).NO.6664/2021, dated 30.04.2021.

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.S.K.Mani For Respondents : Mr.R.Baskaran Standing Counsel

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This contempt petition has been filed on the ground that the petitioners were directed to deposit a sum of Rs.9,50, 000/- before the second respondent Corporation as a condition for the grant of stay and it was also mentioned in the order that this amount pertains to the property tax payable for the period of six years however, the respondents, while issuing the receipt, adjusted this amount for a period more than six years and according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, it also covered the period, which according to the petitioners, is barred by limitation.

¶20

The issue that has been raised can be agitated in the main writ

¶21

petition itself and it is made clear that if ultimately the writ petition is allowed in favour of the petitioners, the amount will confine itself only

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

CONT.P.(MD)No.905 of 2021

¶25

for the period of assessment within limitation. This clarity will safeguard the interest of both the parties.

¶26

This contempt petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶27

03.11.2022

¶28

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No RR

¶29

To 1. The Commissioner, Tiruchirapalli City Corporation, Corporation Buildings, Bharathidasan Salai, Tiruchirappalli - 620 001

¶30

The Assistant Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli City Corporation, K. Abieshakapuram Zone, Puthur, Tiruchirapalli - 17

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

CONT.P.(MD)No.905 of 2021

¶34

N.ANAND VENKATESH , J.

¶35

¶36

ORDER MADE IN CONT.P.(MD)No.905 of 2021

¶37

03.11.2022

¶38

Page 4 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K. Durairaj v. Tiruchirapalli City Corporation Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Durairaj v. Tiruchirapalli City Corporation Rep. by Its

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

Senthil Arumugam, Vs the District Collector

Laxmanan Vs the District Collector

Kutti @ Duraipandian, Vs the Inspector of Police

Durairaj Vs R.Mangalarama Subramanian

Dr. Pr.Ramasamy Vs the Deputy Director

Jeyachandran, S/O.Porvaal Vs J. Jeyarani, W/O. Jeyachandran