Petitioner Vs. Respondent

Petitioner vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Apr 04, 2016

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1191692

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1191692
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: B. Rajendran
Decided On: Apr 04, 2016
Case Number: W.P(MD)Nos. 4738 of 2015 & 1222 7 2566 of 2016 & M.P(MD)Nos. 1 of 2015, & WMP(MD)Nos. 994, 995, 1064, 2269, 2270 of 2016
Subject: Miscellaneous

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Miscellaneous

Key legal issue: Miscellaneous

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Petitioner

Respondent

Excerpt

b. rajendran, j. 1. today, these matters have come up for hearing under the caption "for being mentioned" at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that the collection amount has been wrongly furnished by him as rs.14,00,000/- which meant for both 'pay and use toilet' as well as 'cloak room', but the actual amount to be furnished is rs.10,00,000/- only in respect of 'cloak room'. 2. as far as the petitioner is concerned, the amount should be only for the 'cloak room' and in such a case, only a sum of rs.10,00,000/- has to be collected by the corporation. therefore, a typographical error made in the order as per the representation made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as rs.14,00,000/- is wrong, as admitted by both parties. 3. today, to show his bona fides, the petitioner paid rs.10,00,000/- which is the actual amount payable even on demand by the corporation through demand draft. therefore, in the order dated 11.03.2016 in paragraphs 2 and 3, the amount shall be read as rs.10,00,000/- instead of rs.14,00,000/-. further he submitted that the petitioner has got liberty to seek the refund of the amount insofar as the non-occupation for three months period. it is for the department to consider and decide on the representation made by the petitioner.

Full Judgment

B. Rajendran, J.

1. Today, these matters have come up for hearing under the caption "For Being Mentioned" at the instance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, stating that the collection amount has been wrongly furnished by him as Rs.14,00,000/- which meant for both 'Pay and Use Toilet' as well as 'Cloak Room', but the actual amount to be furnished is Rs.10,00,000/- only in respect of 'Cloak Room'.

2. As far as the petitioner is concerned, the amount should be only for the 'Cloak Room' and in such a case, only a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- has to be collected by the Corporation. Therefore, a typographical error made in the order as per the representation made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as Rs.14,00,000/- is wrong, as admitted by both parties.

3. Today, to show his bona fides, the petitioner paid Rs.10,00,000/- which is the actual amount payable even on demand by the Corporation through Demand Draft. Therefore, in the order dated 11.03.2016 in paragraphs 2 and 3, the amount shall be read as Rs.10,00,000/- instead of Rs.14,00,000/-. Further he submitted that the petitioner has got liberty to seek the refund of the amount insofar as the non-occupation for three months period. It is for the Department to consider and decide on the representation made by the petitioner.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2016 Same Parties Petitioner vs Respondent Same Subject Miscellaneous Same Judge B. Rajendran