Writ Petition No. 8408 of 2011 · Madras High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- M JAICHANDRENWRIT
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 13.11.2009, if it had not been disposed of, till date, on merits and in accordance with law, within a…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 06.04.2011CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.8408 of 2011 Brilliant Industrial Training Institute, rep. By its Correspondent Rm.Somasundaram, New No.9 & 11, First Main Road, Janakpuri, Velacherry, Chennai – 2... Petitioner. Versus1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.
The Revenue Officer, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003. .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to consider the representations dated 11.03.2008 and13.11.2009 for the grant of exemption in terms of the section 101(c) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 from the levy of property tax in respect of the buildings used for educational purposesat New Door No.9 & 11 (Assessment No.63-A and 63-B), First Main Road, Janakpuri, Velachery, Chennai – 42. For Petitioner : Mr.S.KamadevanFor Respondents : Mr.V.BharathidhasanO R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that it would suffice, if the second respondent is directed to dispose of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ representation, dated 13.11.2009, on merits, within a specified period.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 13.11.2009, if it had not been disposed of, till date, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thepetitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the representation, dated13.11.2009, to the second respondent, along with a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.2.The Revenue Officer, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003. +1cc to Mr.S.Kamadevan, Advocate Sr 24325+1cc to Mr.V.Bharathidasan, Advocate Sr 24599PA(CO)km/20.4.Writ Petition No.8408 of 2011
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.