David Muthukani and Another Vs. The Inspector General of Registration/ Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai and Others

David Muthukani and Another vs The Inspector General of Registration/ Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Jun 14, 2016

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1190524

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1190524
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: M. Venugopal
Decided On: Jun 14, 2016
Case Number: W.P.(MD)Nos. 1552 of 2014 & 10446 of 2016 & M.P(MD)Nos. 1 & 2 of 2014
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

David Muthukani and Another

Respondent

The Inspector General of Registration/ Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai and Others

Excerpt

(prayer: writ petition is filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in his proceedings in na.ka.no.309/2010, dated 28.3.2013 and to quash the same as illegal and in violation of principles of laws and further to direct the third respondent to release the document no.1655/2010, dated 09.07.2010 within the time stipulated by this court.) 1. the learned counsel for the petitioner has made an endorsement in the typed-set of papers of the writ petition to the effect that the writ petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition. 2. recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. no costs.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.309/2010, dated 28.3.2013 and to quash the same as illegal and in violation of principles of laws and further to direct the third respondent to release the Document No.1655/2010, dated 09.07.2010 within the time stipulated by this Court.)

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made an endorsement in the typed-set of papers of the Writ Petition to the effect that the Writ Petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition.

2. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. No costs.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2016 Same Parties David Muthukani and Another vs The Inspector General of Regis... Same Subject Education Same Judge M. Venugopal