Dismissed

Rajesh Dulichand Borkar v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Others

Bombay HC1 Aug 2014WP/1435/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court held that the Deputy Registrar failed to state facts supporting the refusal to register a consent decree due to limitation. While a detailed order is not mandatory, the refusal on limitation grounds required reasons. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the Deputy Registrar to expeditiously dispose of the petitioner's representation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 19 March 2014 is set aside. The petitioner is granted liberty to submit a representation justifying the registration, and the Deputy Registrar is directed to dispose of it wit

Rajesh Dulichand Borkar Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

ASN

WP-1435

1/5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1435 OF 2014

R.D.Borkar.

...Petitioner.

vs.

The State of Maharashtra and ors.

¶11

...Respondents.

¶12

Mr. Ashish Kamat i/by L.C.Tolat for the Petitioner. Mr. Niranjan Pandit, A.G.P. for the Respondents-State.

¶13

CORAM : M. S. SANKLECHA, J.

¶14

PC:

¶15

At the request of the Counsel for the parties, petition is taken up final disposal at the stage of admission.

¶16

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged:-

¶17

(a) the Circular dated 22 December 2011 issued by the Inspector General of Registration and Stamp Controller; and

¶18

(b) the communication/order dated 19 March 2014 passed by the Deputy Registrar in the office of Sub Registrar, Kurla, Mumbai Suburban District.

ASN

2/5

WP-1435

Mr. Kamat, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not press its challenge to the Circular dated 22 December 2011. Thus the challenge is only restricted to refusal of the Deputy Registrar to register the consent terms along with the decree under the Registration Act (“the Act”).

¶23

On 19 March 2010, the Bombay City Civil Court passed an order in terms of consent terms in the suit between the petitioner and M/s. Sahyadri Developers. According to the petitioner a decree in respect of the consent terms was drawn on 17 October 2013. Therefore, according to Mr. Kamat, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the period of limitation for the purpose of registering documents would in terms of Sections- 23 of the Act be 4 months from the date of the decree and the period of limitation would commences only from 17 October 2013. In computing the period of limitation the time taken for adjudication of stamp duty payable has to be excluded and if done, then the submission of the documents by the petitioner to the Deputy Registrar for registration is in time. In these circumstances, the Deputy Registrar ought to have accepted the documents/decree dated 17 October 2013 for the purpose of registration under the Act. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order/communication dated 19 March 2014 is bad in law. Alternatively, it is submitted by Mr. Kamat that the impugned order dated 19 March 2014 refusing to register the decree is bereft of any reason and therefore, being bad in law be set aside.

¶24

As against the above, Mr. Pandit learned A.G.P. for the State points out that the decree was drawn up/ready on 17 April 2010

ASN

3/5

WP-1435

and for that purpose he invites my attention to the documents submitted for registration by the petitioner and specifically to Page 40 and 41 of the petition which indicate that the date of decree was 17 April 2010. In view of the above, it is his submission that the impugned communication cannot be found fault with as the date of decree was 17 April 2010 and the petitioner has filed the same much beyond the period of 4 months, even if the time spent for adjudication of stamp duty payable, in the facts of the present case is excluded. In respect of the alternative submission on behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted by Mr. Pandit that the impugned communication need not be a detailed communication and the very fact that the Deputy Registrar has indicated that in view of Section 23 and 24 of the Act, the documents are not acceptable for registration would indicate that there has been an application of mind by the Deputy Registrar. Thus, no interference in respect of the communication/order dated 19 March 2014 is warranted by this Court.

¶29

In rejoinder, Mr. Kamat points out that on application by the petitioner to the Court that the decree was issued to the petitioner only on 17 October 2013.It is 17 October 2013 that is the date of the decree. Therefore, it is reiterated that the submission of documents for registration under the Act is in time.

¶30

I have considered the submissions of the parties. I find that the impugned order/communication dated 19 March 2014 does not indicate on what facts the Deputy Registrar has come to the conclusion that the documents submitted for registration are beyond the period of

ASN

WP-1435

4/5

limitation provided under the Act. There can be no quarrel with the submissions of Mr. Pandit, that Deputy Registrar is not required to pass a very detailed order. Nevertheless, the order passed by the Deputy Registrar must indicate due application of mind to the facts before him, particularly, when he refused to accept the documents for registration on the ground of limitation. This furnishing of reasons is primary requirement to satisfy the principles of Natural Justice. Moreover, in this case, I find that there is a dispute with regard to the date of the decree. This disputed question is for the Deputy Registrar to determine on the basis of the documents before him and the submissions of the petitioner. In the above view the petitioner is granted liberty to file representation within two weeks from today justifying his stand that documents submitted by him are entitled for registration on all counts. It is made clear that in case the Deputy Registrar is of the view that he must personally hear the petitioner before deciding this issue, he is free to do so. In case the Deputy Registrar is not satisfied with the submissions of the petitioner, then his written communication to the petitioner while returning the documents must indicate at least briefly, why according to him the documents submitted are not amenable to registration under the Act.

¶35

In view of the above, I pass the following order :-

¶36

(a) the impugned communication dated 19 March 2014 is set aside;

¶37

(b) the petitioner to submit his representation

¶38

ASN 5/5 WP-1435

¶39

within two weeks from today to the Deputy Registrar justifying his stand that the documents being submitted along with the representations satisfy all conditions for registration under the Act;

¶40

(c) the Deputy Registrar will dispose of the petitioner's representation as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 3-months from the date of the petitioner submitting his representation along with the documents requiring registration under the Act.

¶41

The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.

¶42

(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

Rajesh Dulichand Borkar v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Dulichand Borkar v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Atlanta Ltd. Vs Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. and 7 Ors.

Mmtc Ltd. Vs Millennium WIRE3S (P) Ltd. and 6 Ors.

Bayer Corporation Vs Union of India and Ors.

Saifuddin Alibhai Lakdawala Vs the Irla Qutbi Co-Op Hsg Soc Ltd. and 2 Ors.

M/S. Sunil Hotels Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Rajankumar and Bros(Impex) and 5 Ors. Vs Smit Singapore Pte. Ltd. and Anr.