9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Registration of an award after a significant lapse of time. 2. Interpretation of Sections 23 and 25 of the Registration Act regarding the time limit for presenting documents for registration. 3. Validity of registration beyond the prescribed time limit. 4. Exclusion of time due to court orders restraining registration. 5. Applicability of Limitation Act provisions in matters governed by special laws. Analysis: 1. The case involves a petition filed under Article 227 to consider the registration of an award made on 28-11-77, which was presented for registration on 25-11-83 after a delay of almost 6 years. The main issue is whether registration beyond the specified time limit is permissible under the Registration Act. 2. Section 23 of the Registration Act mandates that non-testamentary instruments, including awards, must be presented for registration within 4 months of execution. However, Section 25 allows for an extension of 4 months in exceptional cases. In this case, the award was registered without any direction from the Registrar to extend the time limit, making the registration beyond the 8-month limit prescribed by Sections 23 and 25. 3. The petitioner argued that registration beyond the specified period is void, citing precedents from the Rangoon and Punjab High Courts. However, the Calcutta High Court referred to its own Division Bench decisions in Motahar Ali and Aditya Kumar cases, which emphasized the strict adherence to the time limits set by the Registration Act. 4. The court considered a court order restraining the parties from presenting the award for registration from 26-7-78 to 20-12-82. The court held that this period should be excluded from the computation of the time limit for registration, following the principle that proceedings stayed by a court order should not count towards the limitation period. 5. Regarding the applicability of the Limitation Act, the court clarified that the powers under Section 5 or Section 15 of the Limitation Act are applicable only to matters before courts, not to Registration Officers. The court emphasized the universal legal principles of preventing injustice and excluding periods of restraint from limitation calculations. 6. Ultimately, the court concluded that even after excluding the period of court restraint, the award was not presented for registration within the prescribed time limits of the Registration Act. Therefore, the registration was deemed invalid, and the petition was allowed, quashing the registration without costs. 7. Both judges, A.M. Bhattacharjee and Sukumar Chakravorty, concurred on the decision to invalidate the registration of the award due to the delay and failure to comply with the time limits specified in the Registration Act.
|
