Disposed¶10

Ulhas Naidu, Chief Promoter of Santosh Nagar Sra Co-Op. Ho.Soc. v. Muncipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Another

Bombay HC14 Feb 2024AO/134/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Registrar's order, Bombay High Court, AFO 134/2024 with IA 1609/2024; non-removal of office objections after four weeks; Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960, Chapter V Rule 3(ii) (removal within 14 days of notification) and Rule 5 (refusal of registration by Registrar); two weeks' final time excluding Summer Vacation; registration to stand refused without further reference on failure; no further extension; dated 06 May 2024.

What did the court decide?

Administrative order: final opportunity of two weeks (excluding Summer Vacation) granted to remove office objections in AFO No.134 of 2024 / IA Stamp No.1609 of 2024, failing which registration stands refused without further reference; no further extension. ¶10

Ulhas Naidu, Chief Promoter of Santosh Nagar Sra Co-Op. Ho.Soc. vs Muncipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Another — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether, upon repeated non-removal of office objections beyond the period prescribed under Chapter V of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, the Registrar should refuse registration outright or grant a final limited opportunity for their removal.

¶10

Court's answer

Under Chapter V, Rule 3(ii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, the Advocates/Parties are required to remove office objections within 14 days from the date of notification.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Under Rule (5) of Chapter V, where office objections are not removed, the office places the matter before the Registrar, who is empowered to refuse registration.

¶9

Key takeaways

As the prescribed time under the 1960 Rules had long expired and a further four weeks had proved fruitless, the Registrar considered it just and proper, rather than refusing registration outright, to give one more opportunity to remove the office objections.ratio¶10
Two weeks' time (excluding Summer Vacation) is granted to remove the office objections; on failure, registration will stand refused without further reference to the Court of Registrar, and no further extension will be granted.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) — Appeal From Order No.134 of 2024 with Interim Application Stamp No.1609 of 2024, before S.R. Agrawal, Registrar (Judl.-II), 06.05.2024. Matter listed third time on the Registrar's board; office objections unremoved although four weeks had been granted. Referring to Chapter V of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules, 1960: Rule 3(ii) requires removal of office objections within 14 days of notification, and Rule 5 contemplates refusal of registration on continued default. Instead of refusing registration outright, the Registrar granted one final opportunity of two weeks (excluding Summer Vacation), directing removal of objections without fail; on failure registration would stand refused without further reference to the Court of Registrar, and no further extension would be granted.

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.134 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1609 OF 2024

¶4

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s orders appearance, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders CORAM : S.R. AGRAWAL REGISTRAR (JUDL. - II) DATE : 06^th May, 2024

¶5

None Present.

¶6

The above numbered Appeal from Order No.134 of 2024 alongwith Interim Application Stamp No.1609 of 2024 are listed on the board of Registrar third time. Already, four weeks time has been granted, however, despite granting four weeks time, the office objections are not removed.

¶7

Here reference to Chapter V of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (for short “Rules”) may be conveniently made. It states about procedure after presentation, removal of office objections etc.

¶8

In view of provisions under Chapter V, Rule 3(ii), the Advocates/Parties are expected to remove the office objections within 14 days from the date of notification.

¶9

Rule (5) further provides that, if the office objections are not removed as provided under Chapter V, Rule 3, the office shall place the matter before the Registrar, who shall refuse the registration of all such matters.

¶10

The prescribed time to remove the office objections provided under Rule 1960 has been expired long back. 04 weeks time was granted, but all in vain. The matter is lying ideally without any progress due to non removal of office objections. However, instead of passing order of refusal of registration outrightly, it would be just and proper to give one opportunity to remove the office objections. In turn, two weeks time is granted (excluding Summer Vacation) with directions to remove the office objections without fail. On failure, registration would stand refused, without further reference to the Court of Registrar. No further extension will be granted. sd/Registrar (Judl. - II) dsm

Ulhas Naidu, Chief Promoter of Santosh Nagar Sra Co-Op. Ho.Soc. v. Muncipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ulhas Naidu, Chief Promoter of Santosh Nagar Sra Co-Op. Ho.Soc. v. Muncipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S. Shreedham Construction Pvt. Ltd.,Mumbai Thr.Its Auth.Director Sanjay S. Maheshwari vs M/S. Pride Precast and Paverblocks Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Its Authorized Director Ajay Devdutt Patole

Reliance General Insurance Com. Ltd. vs Smt. Jaitunnisa Nazi Mohd. Shaikh and Ors.

Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited Thr. Exe. Engineer Ehv Projects Division vs Atmaram Aanaji Palav

Shri. Subhash Kondaji Jachak Vs Sau. Pramila Subhash Jachak

Ulhas Naidu, Chief Promoter Oif Santosh Nagar Sra Co-Op. Ho.Soc. vs Muncipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Another

Mr.Kailash Aggarwal vs Preeti Shah