Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Vairamuthu and Others Vs. The District Registrar (Administration) Registration Department, Sivagangai and Others

Vairamuthu and Others vs The District Registrar (Administration) Registration Department, Sivagangai and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Mar 31, 2016
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1191744

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
W.P(MD)No. 6345 of 2016 & W.M.P(MD)No. 5562 of 2016
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vairamuthu and Others

Respondent

The District Registrar (Administration) Registration Department, Sivagangai and Others

Excerpt

(prayer: writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, praying this court to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in na.ka.no.883/aa1/e1/2014 dated 15.03.2016 and quash the same and pass further orders as this court may deem fit and proper.) the prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in na.ka.no.883/aa1/e1/2014 dated 15.03.2016 and quash the same. 2. mr.m.rajarajan, learned government advocate takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2. by consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. the impugned order is passed in an under enquiry under circular 67 of the inspector general of registration dated 03.11.2011. the authority has carefully considered and found out that there is an impersonation in respect of the registration and therefore, referred to the matter for criminal prosecution. at the same time, taking note of the fact that the petitioner has already filed a civil suit for declaration and also carefully stated that pursuant to circular 67 of the inspector general of registration, dated 03.11.2011, that the document will not be an invalid document, as the civil suit is pending. the authority further stated that the parties are further adjudicating the matter. 4. therefore, i do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the respondent. as far as the criminal prosecution is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to move before the criminal court. 5. accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. no costs. consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.883/Aa1/E1/2014 dated 15.03.2016 and quash the same and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.)

The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.883/Aa1/E1/2014 dated 15.03.2016 and quash the same.

2. Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2. By consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

3. The impugned order is passed in an under enquiry under Circular 67 of the Inspector General of Registration dated 03.11.2011. The authority has carefully considered and found out that there is an impersonation in respect of the registration and therefore, referred to the matter for criminal prosecution. At the same time, taking note of the fact that the petitioner has already filed a civil suit for declaration and also carefully stated that pursuant to Circular 67 of the Inspector General of Registration, dated 03.11.2011, that the document will not be an invalid document, as the civil suit is pending. The authority further stated that the parties are further adjudicating the matter.

4. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the respondent. As far as the criminal prosecution is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to move before the criminal Court.

5. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial