Disposed¶20

U.Harinath v. Madhan Kumar

Madras HC2 Apr 2026CONT P/819/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court contempt petition CONT P No. 819 of 2026 decided 02-04-2026 by Justice Krishnan Ramasamy; petitioner U. Harinath vs Madhan Kumar, Sub-Registrar Nandivaram, Guduvanchery; Section 11 Contempt of Courts Act 1971; alleged disobedience of order in W.P.No. 39946 of 2025 dated 27.10.2025; gift deed fabrication suspicion; verification required under Section 22-B of the Registration Act before registration; document to be considered by respondent in accordance with law if presented; contempt petition closed without punishment.

What did the court decide?

No punishment imposed; the contempt petition was closed, with the observation that if the document is presented by the petitioner, the respondent shall consider it in accordance with law. ¶20

U.Harinath Vs Madhan Kumar — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CONT P No. 819 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY CONT P No. 819 of 2026

¶6

U.Harinath, S/O. Umapathy, No.12/16 Aarumugam Vaithiyar Street, Triplicane, Chennai-600 005.

¶7

Petitioner(s)

¶8

¶9

Madhan Kumar, The Sub-Registrar Nandivaram, Guduvanchery -603 202.

¶10

Contemnor(s)

¶11

PRAYER:- Contempt petition is filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondent / contemnor herein for his willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W,P.No. 39946 of 2025 dated 27.10.2025.

¶12

For Petitioner: Mr.N.Suriya

¶13

For Contemnor(s): Mr.P.Harish Government Advocate

¶14

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

¶15

CONT P No. 819 of 2026

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that in the present case, the documents are yet to be furnished by the petitioner. The petitioner is not approaching the official respondent. He would further submit that the respondent suspect that there might be some fabrication in the gift deed since the subject property involved in the issue of fabrication and many cases are pending in this regard.

¶18

2.Considering the above submissions, this Court is of the view that since

¶19

the subject property is involved in the issues of fabrication of records, certainly the said aspect has to be verified before registering the same in terms of Section 22-B of the Registration Act. Thus, if the document is presented by the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the respondent in accordance with law.

¶20

3.In view of the above, this contempt petition is closed.

¶21

02-04-2026

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

CONT P No. 819 of 2026

¶25

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