Dismissed¶45

M/S.Akshobhya Steels Private Limited v. Deputy Director

Madras HC11 Dec 2025WP/22029/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: WP No.22029 of 2025; Madras High Court; 11.12.2025; Akshobhya Steels Private Ltd; writ of mandamus; Article 226; No-Objection Certificate (NOC); Directorate of Enforcement; Deputy Director; Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002 (PMLA); registration of sale deed dated 06.06.2018; Sub-Registrar Ponneri; Thiruvallur District; Azhingivakkam Village; District Registrar (Admin) Chennai North; appeal dismissed 17.11.2022; WP No.17557 of 2022 disposed 11.07.2022; WP No.34210 of 2022 dismissed for want of prosecution; misconceived petition; dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for issuance of a direction to respondent No.1 to issue a NOC is completely misconceived, because none of the functions enjoined on the first respondent under the provisions of PMLA require it to issue any such NOC. ¶42

M/S.Akshobhya Steels Private Limited Vs Deputy Director — Money Laundering | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether a mandamus could be issued directing the first respondent (Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement) to issue a No-Objection Certificate towards registration of the petitioner's sale deed dated 06.06.2018, and consequently directing respondent No.3 to register the sale deed.

¶27

Court's answer

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's remedy lies only in challenging the order dated 17.11.2022 earlier passed by the Registrar; instead of seeking revival of the earlier writ petition (which was dismissed for want of prosecution), the petitioner has chosen to file this petition.

¶44

Key takeaways

The petitioner took recourse to filing this petition only to get another opportunity despite dismissal of the earlier petition for want of prosecution, in the garb of certain proceedings drawn under PMLA, thereby avoiding properly constituted proceedings and challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 17.11.2022 passed earlier.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (order authored by Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, sitting with G. Arul Murugan, J.) dismissed WP No.22029 of 2025 filed by M/s Akshobhya Steels Private Ltd under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus directing the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement (respondent No.1) to issue a No-Objection Certificate towards registration of its sale deed dated 06.06.2018, and consequently directing the Sub-Registrar, Ponneri (respondent No.3) to register the sale deed. The Court held the NOC prayer completely misconceived, as none of the functions enjoined on the first respondent under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 require it to issue such an NOC. The petitioner's remedy lay only in challenging the Registrar's order dated 17.11.2022 dismissing its appeal, or in seeking revival of WP No.34210 of 2022 (earlier dismissed for want of prosecution), rather than filing a fresh petition in the garb of PMLA proceedings. Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

WP No.22029 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,

¶6

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶9

WP No.22029 of 2025

¶10

M/s Akshobhya Steels Private Ltd Rep. by its Director Mr. Manigandan

¶11

: Petitioner

¶12

versus

¶13

1.The Deputy Director,

¶14

Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, No.2, BSNI Building, Kush Kumar Road, Nugambakkam, Chennai- 600 006.

¶15

2.The District Registrar (Admin) Chennai North, Kuralagam, Chennai- 600 108.

¶16

3.The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Ponneri, Chennai- 600 067.

¶17

: Respondents

¶18

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to issue a ‘No-Objection’ Certificate towards the Registration of Sale Deed dated 06.06.2018 by which the Petitioner has purchased the Subject Property comprised of an extent of 68,452 Sq. ft of land comprised in S.Nos.70/1A2, 70/lBlB, 70/1B1A2, S.No.70/1B/lAl and 70/2A1 situated at Azhingivakkam Village, Jagannathanpuram Group, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District and consequently direct Respondent No. 3 to Register the Sale Deed dated 06.06.2018 in favour of the Petitioner. Page 1 of 6

¶19

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

¶20

WP No.22029 of 2025

¶21

For Petitioner

¶22

: Mr.Rahul M. Shankhar

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.N.Ramesh, Spl.P.P. (ED), for the first respondent

¶24

Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath, Government Advocate, for respondents 2 and 3

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶27

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of a Mandamus directing the first respondent to issue a ‘no objection certificate’ (for short, NOC) towards the registration of sale deed dated 06.06.2018, by which the petitioner has purchased the subject property, and consequently, direct respondent No.3 to register the sale deed dated 06.06.2018 in favour of the petitioner.

¶28

The factual background as is reflected from the records of the

¶29

case is that the petitioner claims to have purchased the subject property and then presented the sale deed for registration before the Sub-Registrar. As no registration was granted, an appeal was preferred before the Registrar. When no decision was being taken, petitioner Page 2 of 6

¶30

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

¶31

WP No.22029 of 2025

¶32

filed WP No.17557 of 2022 before this Court, which was disposed of on 11.07.2022, directing the District Registrar (Administration), Chennai North, to conduct inquiry and decide the appeal.

¶33

By an order dated 17.11.2022, the appeal was dismissed.

¶34

3.1. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner again filed

¶35

a writ petition before this Court in WP No.34210 of 2022. That petition however, was dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶36

It appears that in respect of the same property, certain proceedings were drawn under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, (for short, ‘PMLA’).

¶37

The petitioner, only in order to get another opportunity, despite dismissal of the petition for want of prosecution, has taken recourse to filing this petition, in the garb of certain proceedings drawn under PMLA, and seeks a direction, avoiding a properly constituted proceedings, and challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 17.11.2022 passed earlier.

¶38

Page 3 of 6

¶39

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

¶40

WP No.22029 of 2025

¶41

The prayer for issuance of direction to respondent No.1 to

¶42

issue NOC is completely misconceived. None of the functions enjoined to the first respondent under the provisions of PMLA require it to issue any such NOC, as is being asked by the petitioner.

¶43

The petitioner's remedy lies only in challenging the order

¶44

dated 17.11.2022 earlier passed by the Registrar. A writ petition was filed earlier; but was dismissed for want of prosecution. It appears that instead of seeking revival of the writ petition, petitioner has chosen to file this petition.

¶45

The petition therefore is misconceived and dismissed. There

¶46

will be no order as to costs.

¶47

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) 11.12.2025 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No tar

¶48

Page 4 of 6

¶49

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

¶50

WP No.22029 of 2025

¶51

¶52

1.The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, No.2, BSNI Building, Kush Kumar Road, Nugambakkam, Chennai- 600 006.

¶53