Partly allowed

Kanjamally Mudaliar v. State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC27 Oct 2022WA/1509/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the writ court's findings on merits while upholding the dismissal of the writ petition as not maintainable. The court held that since the writ petition was incompetent, the lower court should not have examined the merits regarding the conversion of historical currency.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal allowed. Findings on merits set aside; petition dismissed as not maintainable. Petitioner left to approached appropriate forum.

Kanjamally Mudaliar Vs State of Tamilnadu — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.A.No.1509 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 27.10.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.A.No.1509 of 2012

¶7

Kanjamally Mudaliar Charitable Trust, 2/1, Municipal Office Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirapalli - 620 001. Represented by its Trustee, D.M.Ram Mohan

¶8

...Appellant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

State of Tamilnadu, Represented by its Secretary, Finance (W & M.II) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. (Cause title accepted vide Order dt. 02.07.2012 made in MP.No.2 of 2012 in W.A.Sr.No.39314/12) ..Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the order in W.P.No.11751 of 2009 dated 04.03.2011.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.T.Srikanth For Respondent : Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram Advocate General Assisted by Mr.T.Arunkumar Additional government Pleader

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

W.A.No.1509 of 2012

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

(Judgment was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) Challenge in the Writ Appeal is to the order of the Writ Court

¶18

dismising the claim of the petitioner on merits as well as on the ground of competence. Necessary back ground facts are as follows:-

¶19

The petitioner Trust had loaned, a sum of 5,000 Star Pagodas under two different bonds, to the East India Company during the year 1775 and on 18.02.1776 bonds were issued by the East India Company, acknowledging the said loan aggreeing to pay interest at 6% for the loan of 2,000 Pagodas and 8% for the loan of 3,000 Pagodas. The number of Pagodas that would be paid as interest was also stated in the communication issued by the Deputy Superintendent of the Company on 06.05.1776. In the year 2000, the Trustee made a request for the copy of the bonds and in the year 2001, the Trustee claimed the current value of the Star Pagodas from the Government. Since the said request was rejected by the Government by letter dated 05.07.2008, the petitioner has come up with a Writ Petition.

¶20

2.The rejection of the request of the petitioner was on the ground

¶21

2/6

¶22

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

¶23

W.A.No.1509 of 2012

¶24

that the transaction is a simple loan transaction wherein, the petitioner Trust had loaned the Star Pagodas as the then existing currency. During the year 1818, when the currency was converted into rupee, the intrinsic value of the Star Pagodas was worked out at 3 Rupees 50 Paise per Star Pagoda and the principle amount loaned by the petitioner was arrived at Rs.17,500/-. The interest on the said Rs.17,500/- was also worked at 6% for Rs.7,000/- and 8% for Rs.10,500/- at Rs.420/- and Rs.840/- per annum respectively. It is not in dispute that the interest is being paid till date.

¶25

3.The petitioner's contention before the Writ Court was that it would be entitled to return of the Star Pagodas in Specie or it should be valued at the prevailing cost of gold. This contention was rejected by the Writ Court on the ground that what was loaned was a currency and not gold as such. The Writ Court further held that the petitioner would be entitled to interest on the converted value of the currency alone. After having concluded as above, the Writ Court went one step further and held, this being a matter of contract, the Writ Petition is not competent.

¶26

4.We have heard Mr.V.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the

¶27

3/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.A.No.1509 of 2012

¶30

appellant and Mr.P.Shanmugasundaram, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

¶31

5.While Mr.T.Srikanth would attempt to persuade us to accept his

¶32

contention that what was loaned was gold as such and not the currency, the learned Advocate General would submit that it was the then existing currency that was loaned and upon conversion of the currency, instrinsic value of the old currency was converted under the new currency regime and value was arrived at 3 Rupees 50 Paise per Star Pagoda in the year 1818 and the petitioner Trust accepted the said value for over 130 years and therefore it is not open to them to raise the issue after more than a century.

¶33

6.Mr.T.Srikanth would additionally submit that having held that

¶34

the Writ Petition is not competent, the learned Single Judge ought not to have pronounced order on the merits of the Writ Petition. We have considered contentions of the learned counsel appearing on the either side.

¶35

7.We find that the second submission of Mr.T.Srikanth is more

¶36

4/6

¶37

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

¶38

W.A.No.1509 of 2012

¶39

acceptable. Having held that the Writ Petition is not maintainable, the Writ Court ought not to have gone further and pronounced on the merits. When the Court reaches the conclusion that the Writ Petition is not maintainable, proceeding to examine the merits is not, in our considered opinion, just and proper. We are therefore, constrained to set aside the findings of the Writ Court on merits while sustaining the order only on the question of jurisdiction.

¶40

8.Therefore, the Writ Appeal is party allowed, setting aside the conclusions of the Writ Court on merits while upholding its conclusion on the maintainability of the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition will stand dismissed as not maintainable, leaving it open to the petitioner to seek adjudication of iis rights before the appropriate forum. No costs.

¶41

(R.S.M., J.) (K.B., J.) 27.10.2022

¶42

kkn Internet:No Index:Yes Speaking

¶43

5/6

¶44

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

¶45

W.A.No.1509 of 2012

¶46

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶47

KKN

¶48

To:-

¶49

The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Finance (W & M.II) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶50

W.A.No.1509 of 2012

¶51

27.10.2022

¶52

6/6

¶53

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

Kanjamally Mudaliar v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanjamally Mudaliar v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Member Secretary Vs M/S. Rankers Tennis Academy

Rajakumar Vs The Registrar

Rajakumar Vs The Registrar

The General Manger Vs Sumathi Selvaraj

G.Gnanaguru Vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

C.Nagarathinam Vs The Tamil Nadu State Level Scruitny Committee-Iii