DURAISAMY Vs. CHAIRMAN TAMILNADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed challenging the demand notice dated 16.12.2004 issued by the second respondent, in proceedings ROC.1/923/85.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, his father Muthiah Chettiar, and the first respondent entered into an agreement dated 21.03.1975 for hulling of paddy. On the basis of agreement dated 21.03.1975 the petitioners father deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 14.03.1977.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the pendency of the suit and subsequent appeal, the respondents were not in a position to initiate any proceedings and, therefore, the delay has occurred. However, it is not known whether any other demand notice has been issued prior to the issuance of the impugned order. Subsequently, it was also contended that prior issuance of notice is not necessary since, there was an agreement between the petitioner's father and the first respondent by entering into an agreement on 21.03.1975, permitting the first respondent to claim any due or financial liabilities from the petitioner's father, including his legal heirs, namely, the petitioner herein.