Amjad Bagban S/o Babu Miya Age 38 Yrs occ Business. R/o Aland vs The Registrar Of Birth And Death, through The Cheif Officer TMC, Aland — 3786/2025
Case under Registration of Births and Deaths Act Section 13(iii). Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 07th March 2026.
Crl.Misc. - CRIMINAL MISC.CASES
CNR: KAKB220111012025
Filing Number
3786/2025
Filing Date
06-Dec-2025
Registration No
3786/2025
Registration Date
06-Dec-2025
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ALAND
Judge
324-Prl. CIVIL Judge JMFC,Aland
Decision Date
07-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE
Last updated 07-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Amjad Bagban S/o Babu Miya Age 38 Yrs occ Business. R/o Aland
Adv. Devanand Hodloorkar
Respondent(s)
-
1.The Registrar Of Birth And Death, through The Cheif Officer TMC, Aland
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
07-Mar-2026
OrdersView PDF
The court allowed the petition under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969, directing the respondent to register the petitioner Amjad Bagban's birth date as 01-01-1987 and issue a birth certificate. The court found that the petitioner had discharged his burden through credible oral and documentary evidence (non-availability certificate and PAN card), and since the respondent failed to contest the claim despite being served notice, the petitioner's assertions went unchallenged. The court clarified that this order shall not be conclusive proof of the birth date if disputed in future civil or criminal proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
07-Mar-2026
Disposed
Prl. CIVIL Judge JMFC,Aland
-
10-Feb-2026
Orders..
Prl. CIVIL Judge JMFC,Aland
-
17-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
06-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 3786/2025
The court allowed the petition under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969, directing the respondent to register the petitioner Amjad Bagban's birth date as 01-01-1987 and issue a birth certificate. The court found that the petitioner had discharged his burden through credible oral and documentary evidence (non-availability certificate and PAN card), and since the respondent failed to contest the claim despite being served notice, the petitioner's assertions went unchallenged. The court clarified that this order shall not be conclusive proof of the birth date if disputed in future civil or criminal proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts