Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Krishnan Ramasamy, J
M/S. BADRINATH COMMOTRADE PRIVATE LTD – Appellant
Versus
THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disclosure required for appeal consideration. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. government advocate affirms processing of the appeal. (Para 4) |
| 3. court to facilitate timely review without addressing merits. (Para 5) |
| 4. court directed conclusion on appeal within specified timeframe. (Para 6) |
Order
With consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking for a mandamus to the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's Appeal dated
12.12.2023 within a time frame.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that aggrieved by the order passed by the fourth respondent, the petitioner filed an Appeal before the first respondent on 12.12.2023 and since the said Appeal evoked no response, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of filing this Writ Petition, seeking for the aforementioned relief.
3.1 It is submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to respondent No.1 to dispose of the Appeal pending before him within a stipulated time.
4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has submitted that the Appeal filed by the petitioner would b
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
