Madras High Court
WP(MD)/29579/2026 of Paulraj Vs The Inspector General of Reg on 13 October 2026
WP(MD) No. 29579 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.P.(MD)No. 29579 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011302142026}
Paulraj
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Inspector General of Registration, No. 100, Santhome High Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 028.
2. The Sub-Registrar,
Melur Sub-registrar Office,
Muthammal Colony
Thoothukudi District - 628 002.
3. The Authorized Officer,
Shriram Finance Limited,
No.3/186/6, Palayamkottai Road,
MSP Towers 2nd Floor,
Collector Office Opposite,
4. Dinesh Durai
5. Ganeshkannan
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to Document No.9 of 2021 dated 17.11.2021
registered before the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to cancel/efface the said entry from the registration records and issue a clean Encumbrance Certificate in respect of the petitioner’s __________
( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 03:27:10 pm )
WP(MD) No. 29579 of 2026
property.
For Petitioner
:Mr.Gowtham
For R1 and R2
:Mr.S.Siva Thilakar
Special Government Pleader
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Heard Mr.Gowtham, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Siva Thilakar, learned Special Government Pleader, who accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2.
2. The present Writ Petition had been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent and for a direction to the second respondent to remove an encumbrance that had been caused pursuant to an interim order passed in an arbitral proceedings attaching the property belonging to the petitioner.
3. As against an order of attachment that had been passed, if the petitioner is aggrieved, he can take recourse to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in challenging the arbitral award.
4. Contending that the Arbitrator has no authority to communicate the order of attachment and to create an encumbrance would only whittle down the order of attachment already passed, thereby allowing further __________
( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 03:27:10 pm )
WP(MD) No. 29579 of 2026 transactions in respect of the said property. An order passed by an Arbitrator is in exercise of power akin to a civil Court and in the present case, is an order passed under Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC and if the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted, the order passed by the Arbitrator attaching the property on merits which could be subject matter of a further challenge under the provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, would only be a piece of paper.
5. In the result, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No cmr __________
( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 03:27:10 pm )
WP(MD) No. 29579 of 2026 To
1. The Inspector General of Registration, No. 100, Santhome High Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 028.
2. The Sub-Registrar, Melur Sub-registrar Office, Muthammal Colony, Thoothukudi District - 628 002. __________
( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 03:27:10 pm )
WP(MD) No. 29579 of 2026 K.KUMARESH BABU, J. cmr WP(MD) No. 29579 of 2026 13-10-2026 __________
( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 03:27:10 pm )