- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Appeal allowed and an order treating a rectification application as abandoned set aside. The Registrar had held that Rule 44 was mandatory and that non-compliance deemed the application abandoned, but without examining whether the applications for extension of time themselves qualified as actions under Rule 44(1), and without any discussion in the operative part of the applicability of section 65, which had been raised and noticed.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.