1981 (10) TMI 170

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ondents that the said application C.T.M.P. No. 246 of 1977 was withdrawn on 1st March, 1978. But the fact remains that the first respondent has set in motion the process under section 24(2)(a) of the Act for recovery of the aforesaid taxes as if they were arrears of land revenue. The first respondent issued a distraint notice dated 31st January, 1979, under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act (2 of 1864). The petitioners challenge this distraint notice in the present writ petition. Mr. K. Venkatasubba Raju, the learned counsel for the petitioners, states that the application under section 24(2) is being freshly prosecuted against the petitioners and the petitioners are not aware of the withdrawal of C.T.M.P. No. 246 of 1977 on 1st March, 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y Magistrate, by such Magistrate as if it were a fine imposed by him. The two remedies are definitely distinct and separate. After clause (a) the word "or" has been consciously incorporated in the provision. This word is portent, and to a very great extent, it indicates that the remedy under clause (a) is to the exclusion of the remedy under clause (b). It is true when there are two or more remedies prescribed by law, there is no justification to hold that one excludes the other and normally, both the remedies are available to the person who claims them. Such is the dictum expressed by Mahmood, J., in Shankar Sahai v. Din Dial (1890) ILR 12 All 409 (FB). This dictum of Mahmood, J., was referred to by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. ....