Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, G.ARUL MURUGAN
M. Rajkumar, S/o.Murugesan – Appellant
Versus
Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Income Tax Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition listed for maintainability pre-numbering. (Para 2) |
| 2. supreme court and committee prohibit registry refusing numbering. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. supreme court enforces numbering subject to maintainability. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. court directs registry to number and list for maintainability. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
ORDER
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The Writ Petition in SR stage before numbering, is listed before this Court under the caption “for maintainability”.
3. The issue regarding the Registry refusing to number a case, raising a doubt regarding maintainability is no longer res integra. In the case of P.Surendran vs. State , reported in 2019 (9) SCC 154, which arose pursuant to the order of the Registry of this Court in refusing to number a case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court Registry could not have exercised the power to decide on maintainability of a case, as it is a judicial function in the realm of the Court and directed the Registry to number the case and post before Court. For easy reference, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder;
“11. Therefore, we hold that the High Court Registry could n
High Court Registry cannot refuse to number petitions on maintainability grounds; must number subject to court decision.
The act of numbering a petition is purely administrative; maintainability should be judicially assessed, not relegated to the Registry.
Maintainability is essentially a matter which needs to be addressed by Court on judicial side, while clarifying that Registry is free to consider maintainability of matter.
Registry may raise maintainability objections at scrutiny and cases shall be numbered subject to maintainability as decided by court.
The Court allows re-submission of a Section 9(2) application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing maintainability issues.
Maintainability of execution applications must be decided judicially by court, not registry, after numbering and hearing.
(1) Return of plaint – For curing any of permissible defects, no court shall return plaint more than once – Returning plaint multiple times on multiple grounds is a sin in procedure.(2) Encumbrance c....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
