The High Court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution by the petitioners' counsel, who had no instructions to proceed with the matter filed under Article 226.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P. No.1735 of 2016 and WMP No.20094 of 2016
1.D.Ramachandran 2.Nirmala
....Petitioners
Versus
Chennai – 97.
.... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of both the check slip dated 08.05.2015 of the 3rd respondent and its consequential order dated 13.05.2015 in No.89/2015 quash the same and direct the 3rd respondent herein to admit and register the sale deed dated 08.05.2015 executed in favour of the 1st petitioner herein by the 2nd petitioner of herself and also as power agent of the other legal heirs of deceased Ramaswamy.
For Petitioners : Mr.J. Ramakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, Spl. GP for R1to R3 M/s.Solomon Francis for R4
ORDER
It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners that he has no instructions in this matter.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vsi2
To
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.30462
W.P. No.1735 of 2016
RSV[co] NSK/20/05/2022
1 provisions across 1 enactments
D.Ramachandran
Nirmala
The Inspector General of Registration
The District Registrar
The Sub Registrar
M/s Om Shakthy Agencies (Madras) Pvt. Ltd.
M. Dhandapani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
