Allowed

C.Sureshchand Jain v. the Deputy Director (HIU-2(3)

Madras HC14 Jun 2024WP/5294/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a Sub Registrar's refusal slip refusing registration of their sale deed, citing an Enforcement Directorate attachment on the property. The Directorate confirmed in its counter that the property was not attached and petitioners were unconnected to the case. The court quashed the refusal slip.

What did the court decide?

Refusal slip dated 16.10.2023 quashed; second respondent directed to register the sale deed within 7 days if otherwise in order; no costs.

C.Sureshchand Jain Vs the Deputy Director (HIU-2(3) — Money Laundering | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.5294 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14.06.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.5294 of 2024

¶7

1.C.Sureshchand Jain

¶8

2.P.Arvind

¶9

3.V.Manish

¶10

4.I.Saroja

¶11

5.Ashok Kumar

¶12

6.Surendar

¶13

7.A.Mahaveer ... Petitioners

¶14

versus

¶15

1.The Deputy Director (HIU-2(3), Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi.

¶16

2.The Sub Registrar, Office of Sub Registrar, Tambaram.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records and quash the impugned refusal check slip vide REF/Tambaram Joint 1.12.2023 dated 16.10.2023 issued by the second respondent and consequently direct the second respondent to register the sale deed executed on 06.07.2023 by the petitioners represented by their Power Agent, J.Narendrakumar in favour of S.Kavitha.

¶19

1/6

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

W.P.No.5294 of 2024

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr.M.L.Ganesh For Respondent No.1 : Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil Standing Panel Counsel For Respondent No.2 : Mr.P.Anandhakumar Government Advocate

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the refusal slip dated

¶25

16.10.2023 issued by the second respondent, whereby he refused to register

¶26

the sale deed presented by the petitioners for registration.

¶27

2 . It is the case of the writ petitioners that when they presented the sale deed on 06.07.2023 in favour of one Kavitha, the same was refused to be registered on the ground that an attachment was passed in respect of the said property by the Enforcement Directorate. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶28

3 . It is the contention of the petitioners that their property has not been attached by the Enforcement Directorate and without proper verification, orders have been passed.

¶29

4 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Panel Counsel for the first respondent, the learned Government

¶30

2/6

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.No.5294 of 2024

¶33

record.

¶34

Advocate for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶35

5 . A counter has been filed by the first respondent / Directorate of

¶36

Enforcement. It is stated in paragraph No.4 that the subject property has not

¶37

been provisionally attached by the first respondent and is not part of the attachment order F No.ECIR/04/DLZO-II/2018/3084, 3082.

¶38

6 . The learned Standing Panel Counsel for the first respondent

¶39

also submitted that the investigation has already been completed in this matter and the petitioners are also in no way connected in this enforcement case. As there is no attachment, as stated by the Directorate of Enforcement, the refusal slip is liable to be quashed.

¶40

7 . In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order of refusal slip dated 16.10.2023 stands quashed and the second respondent is directed to register the document presented by the petitioners for registration, if it is otherwise in order, as per law, within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that, as the document was presented within a time earlier, it was refused to

¶41

3/6

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.No.5294 of 2024

¶44

be registered. Now, the delay in representing cannot be put against the writ petitioner. No costs.

¶45

14.06.2024

¶46

Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶47

sri

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

4/6

¶50

W.P.No.5294 of 2024

¶51

¶52

1.The Deputy Director (HIU-2(3), Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi.

¶53

2.The Sub Registrar, Office of Sub Registrar, Tambaram.

¶54

5/6

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

W.P.No.5294 of 2024

¶57

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶58

sri

¶59

W.P.No.5294 of 2024

¶60

14.06.2024 [2/2]

¶61

6/6

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.Sureshchand Jain v. the Deputy Director (HIU-2(3)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Sureshchand Jain v. the Deputy Director (HIU-2(3)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aginesh Ammual Vs the District Collector

F.W.H.Sengutuvan Vs Commissioenr of Land Administration

K.S.Murali Prasad Vs S.Vineeth, I.A.S.

C.Sureshchand Jain Vs the Deputy Director (HIU-2(3)

S.Chidambara Saravanan Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

S.Neelakandan Vs the Inspector General of Registration