Disposed

M/s.New chennai Township v. The Inspector General of

Madras HC1 Aug 2017WP/30038/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a mandate directing the Sub Registrar, Cheyyur, to register documents for a Special Economic Zone property without stamp duty. The court directed the Inspector General of Registration to consider the petitioner's representation in light of a prior precedent within four weeks and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation within four weeks and pass orders in accordance with law. No costs.

M/s.New chennai Township Vs The Inspector General of — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01.08.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶6

Writ Petition No.30038 of 2016

¶7

M/s. New Chennai Township Private
Limited, rep. by its Authorised Signatory
C.S.Jaiprabhu ... Petitioner
v.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome, Chennai – 28.
2.The District Registrar,
Chengelpet.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Cheyyur. ... Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶9

India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent to accept and register the documents presented for registration in respect of property situated in Seekinakuppam Village, Cheyyur Taluk, Kancheepuram District and developed as Special Economic Zone by petitioner company by continuing the

¶10

exemption from payment of stamp duty.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Alexraj for Mr.D.Baskar For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajeswaran, SGP

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to accept and register the documents presented for registration in respect of the property situated in Seekinakuppam Village, Cheyyur Taluk, Kancheepuram District and developed as Special Economic Zone by the petitioner company by continuing the exemption from payment

¶16

of stamp duty.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶18

submitted that the petitioner has given a representation to the first respondent as early as on 01.07.2016. However, the first respondent has not passed any order so far. Learned counsel further submitted that in identical circumstances, this Court in a decision reported in 2016 Writ L.R. 733 (Deepti Ahuja v. the

¶19

Chief Controlling Revenue Authority-cum-Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and others) set aside the impugned orders passed by the respondents therein and directed the third respondent therein to register the lease deed presented by the petitioner therein. Thus, learned counsel sought for similar direction in this writ petition also.

¶20

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶21

¶22

Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader taking notice for the respondents, submitted that the first respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.07.2016 in the light of the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and pass orders in accordance

¶23

with law.

¶24

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.07.2016 in the light of the decision reported in 2016 Writ L.R. 733 (Deepti Ahuja v. the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority-cum-Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and others) and pass orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No

costs.

01.08.2017

Index : Yes/No rk

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶30

¶31

M.DURAISWAMY, J.
rk
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome, Chennai – 28.
2.The District Registrar, Chengelpet.
3.The Sub Registrar, Cheyyur.
W.P.No.30038 of 2016

¶32

01.08.2017

¶33

http://www.judis.nic.in

M/s.New chennai Township v. The Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.New chennai Township v. The Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Natesan Vs The Commissioner

A.Kudiarasu Vs The Thasildar

Lanco Tanjore Power Company Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity

M/s.Sbm Construction & Vs District Registrar

Pille Gowdu, Vs The District Collector

S.Mythili, Vs The District Collector