The Court dismissed review applications filed against an order invoking suo-motu powers under the Indian Stamp Act based on audit objections. The judge held that prior precedents relied upon by petitioners did not apply and no error was apparent on the face of the record.
Review petitions in all three applications dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.03.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
Review Application Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of 2018
Review Applications have been filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 114 of C.P.C, against the judgment and decree passed in C.M.A Nos.198, 199 and 200 of 2015, dated 24.08.2017 on the file of the High Court.
2
J U D G M E N T
These Review Applications have been filed seeking for review of
the judgment dated 24.08.2017 passed in C.M.A Nos.198, 199 and 200 of 2015.
Nadu, reported in 2014 (5) LW 280 , in support of my conclusions.
3
The subsequent Division Bench judgment of this Court in The Special
Deputy Collector (Stamps), Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District v.
M.Alfred and others reported in 2017 (5) LW 212 , dated 09.10.2017
also does not deal with the aspect relating to the scope of the powers of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/ Inspector General of Registration, while invoking the suo-motu powers. Hence, I do not see any error apparent on the face of the record to enable to entertain the
reviews, the Review Petitions are dismissed. No costs.
21.03.2018
jv
Index: No Internet: Yes Speaking order
4
R.SUBRAMANIAN,J.
Jv
To
1. The Sub-Registrar,
Hosur, Krishnagiri Taluk,
Krishnagiri District.
2. The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps)
Salem.
3. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority,
Inspector General of Registration,
100, Santhome High Road.
Chennai 600 028.
Review Application Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of 2018
21.03.2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether error apparent on the face of the record exists to entertain reviews of an order where suo-motu powers were not invoked solely based on audit objections.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajendran v. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and two othersRelied on¶16
Rajendran v. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and two others, 2012 (3) LW 606
M/s.Karpagavinayaga Associates v. The Inspector General of Registration of Tamil NaduRelied on¶16
M/s.Karpagavinayaga Associates v. The Inspector General of Registration of Tamil Nadu, 2014 (5) LW 280
WPMP No.1922 of 2004 etc. dated 01.07.2007Distinguished¶20
The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District v. M.Alfred and othersDistinguished¶21
The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District v. M.Alfred and others, 2017 (5) LW 212
3 provisions across 2 enactments
The Sub-Registrar, Hosur
The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) Salem
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
Thara Devi
Kamal B.Sethiya
Mithun B.Sethiya
R.SUBRAMANIAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
