Dismissed

Rajeswari & Co. v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Madras HC2 Dec 2024SA(MD)/191/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant claimed a second appeal filed under CPC Section 100 had become infructuous as the underlying tax dispute and arrears had been settled before the Samathan Scheme. The High Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal dismissed as infructuous;Connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

Rajeswari & Co. Vs the Commercial Tax Officer — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

S.A.(MD)No.191 of 2004

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.12.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

S.A.(MD)No.191 of 2004 and C.M.P(MD)No.780 of 2004

¶7

Rajeswari & Co.Regd. Institutution No.5/1986

¶8

Rep. by its Current Partners

¶9

1.Sankaralingam 2.J.Murugesan

¶10

3.S.Janarthana Perumal

¶11

...Appellants/Petitioners/Plaintiffs

¶12

-Vs-

¶13

The Commercial Tax Officer, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.

¶14

...Respondent/Respondent/Defendant

¶15

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the Decree and Judgment of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli passed in A.S.No.172 of 2003, dated 23.01.2004 and confirming the decree and judgment of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi passed in O.S.No.87 of 2000, dated 12.12.2002.

¶16

For Appellants : Mr.V.M.Balamoham Thambi For Respondent : Mr.M.Siddharthan Additional Government Pleader * * * * *

¶17

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

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

S.A.(MD)No.191 of 2004

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the matter has been settled before the Samathan Scheme and as on date, no arrear is pending. To that effect, he has produced a copy of the proceedings of the respondent dated 30.11.2023. He further submitted that in view of the above proceedings, the prayer sought for in this second appeal has become infructuous.

¶22

Recording the said submission, this Second Appeal is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶23

02.12.2024

¶24

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No skn To

¶25

1.The Principal District Court, Tirunelveli.

¶26

2.The Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi.

¶27

3.The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶28

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

¶29

Page 2 of 3

¶30

S.A.(MD)No.191 of 2004

¶31

V.SIVAGNANAM. J,

¶32

skn

¶33

S.A.(MD)No.191 of 2004

¶34

02.12.2024

¶35

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

¶36

Page 3 of 3

Rajeswari & Co. v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeswari & Co. v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Krishnan Vs P.Ramesh

C.Vasantha Vs Veluchamy

K.Kasammal Vs J.Rakkammal

Sreeveedhas Vs Anbayyan

Maria Arputham Vs Dr.a.Jesydasan

1. Sivakami (Died), 2. Murugan Vs S. Govindammal