1. Registration of document – Time for presenting a document is 4 months: Registration Act, 1908 sec. 23

Documents were presented in office of Sub Registrar within four months of their execution. The office of Sub-Registrar took time to adjudicate stamp duty which was beyond four months prescribed by S. 23. It was held that if authorities take time to adjudicate stamp duty, petitioner cannot be made to face consequence of the delay. Time spent by Sub-Registrar in adjudicating stamp duty should not be held to detriment of petitioner in so far as registration of documents are concerned. Refusal of Sub- Registrar to register documents, not proper. Sub registrar directed to register documents in question.

Opal Builders P. Ltd. Mumbai v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 2016 (NOC) 113 (Bom.)

2. Registration of Document – Document actually effectuating partition : Registration Act, 1908 sec. 17

Unregistered Panchayat partitition deed is not memorandum of recording of past transactions but document effectuating partition of all family properties. Is inadmissible for want of registration and stamp duty. Document actually effectuating partition of all family properties are required to be registered compulsorily under Registration Act.

Venkataswamy & Ors v. Smt. Annemma AIR 2016 (NOC) 120 (Kar.)

3. Rights of lessor’s transferee – Statutory, attornment by tenant in favour of lessors transferee: Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Transfer of ownership of premises to respondent by previous lessor results in statutory attornment by tenant in favour of lessor’s transferee, i.e. the respondent. Jural relationship of landlord and tenant between transferee respondent therefore comes into existence. Transferee/steps in shoes of lessor/landlord and entitled to all rights of lessor/landlord . He is entitled to collect rent in terms of lease as of right and becomes
Rs.landlord’ under s. 3(e) of Rent Act. Tenant cannot dispute right of Transferee to maintain an eviction petition under Rent Act or to claim rent.

Vinod G. V. Jijabai Shrikant Jadhav AIR 2016 (NOC) 121 (Kar.)

4. Recovery of dues – Financial Corporation is deemed to be bank – Banker’s Book Evidence Act, 1891 sec 4

Financial Corporation is deemed to be bank for purpose of bankers book Evidence Act. Held that the certified copy of entries in loan ledger of corporation should be received as prima facie evidence in proceedings for recovery of dues.

Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation, Bengaluru v. M/s. Prashanth Minerals Exports (P) Ltd. Bengaluru & Ors. AIR 2016 (NOC) 125 (Kar.)

5. Foreign Award – Objections to enforcement

Contract was entered into between parties for sale of white sugar. Contract starting with phrase
Rs.we confirm having sold to you’ suggesting contract had been entered into. Arbitration clause in contract clearly showing that disputes arising out of contract were to be referred to Association for settlement in accordance with Arbitration Rules. Judgment debtor having filed their written submissions before Tribunal, they had participated in Arbitration. Award not found to be against public policy of India. Moreover judgment debtor not taking any action in English Courts to set aside award. Judgment debtors application for oral hearing not entertained as they had not deposited requisite fees. Objections to enforcement of award, not tenable.

Bunge London Ltd. v. E. Piyarellal Import & Export Ltd. AIR 2016 (NOC) 68 Cal

6. Cancellation of allotment of flat on non payment of additional price would not amount to abuse of dominance by builder: Competition Act

Where complainant filed complaint against respondent builder for indulging in unfair trade practice and sought for possession of flat allotted to him by respondent, there was no unfair trade practice and Tribunal could not issue direction to respondent to deliver possession, because that would tantamount to specific performance of agreement.

Inder Mehta v. Pushpa Builders Ltd. (2015) 58 taxmann.com 212 (CAT – New Delhi).

7. Consumer Complaint – Registered Agreement to sale – Stipulated sale consideration – Held written note for any other amount for consideration not binding on parties – The Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion, Construction, Sale Management and Transfer) Act, 196 (MOFA); Consumer Protection Act

In this case appellant Developer had entered in a registered agreement for sale of the flat with the respondent/complainant dated 9-5-2011. The said agreement stipulated a total price of the flat for
Rs. 10 lakh. Appellant developer admitted to have received only Rs. 10 lakh prior to execution of the agreement to sale whereas agreed consideration of the said flat was
Rs. 15.65 lakh and not Rs. 10 lakh as per a written note. The Opponent developer relied on the handwritten note.

The District Forum Kolhapur passed an order allowing the consumer complaint partly with directions to execute registered sale deed by complying with all the legal requirements for handing over possession of Unit No. B-2 admeasuring 58.55 sq mtrs. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, appellant preferred an appeal.

The Hon’ble State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra Mumbai observed that agreement to sale has been executed and duly registered on 9-5-2011. As provided under the provisions of the MOFA and model agreement thereunder any provision inconsistent therewith is not binding on the parties. The written note dated 29-4-2011 is outside the registered agreement to sale. It was therefore held that the order passed by the District Forum is not inconsistent with the legal provisions and thus held that the appeal was unsustainable and was liable to dismissed.

Amey Developers Pro. Suresh Rajaram Dharmadhikari v. Vidya Mahesh Salokhe, [First Appeal No. A/15/958 dated 8-9-2015, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai]

8. Professional activity carried on in residential premises by lawyer – Levy of Property Tax – Activity of such kind cannot be termed as professional establishment and premises cannot be termed as business building within purview of Bye-law 9(b) – Levy of property tax on such premises – Not proper.[Delhi Municipal Corporation Act of 1957, Ss. 481, 2(3), 116A(f)

The Hon’ble High Court was considering a issue that whether user of portion of house for consultation work by lawyer and study by his son can be termed as professional establishment and premises can be termed as business building and levy of property tax on such premises was permissible or not.

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in this case observed that there is a fundamental distinction between a professional establishment and professional activity.

The distinction between ‘professional activity and ‘professional establishment’ can be illustrated by the following example. A ‘professional’s office would be a ‘professional establishment’ when the usage of the office space is in excess of the conditions stipulated in Clause 15.8 of the MPD 2021 or if the said office is situated in a building designated as commercial or business in the MPD 2021 and Zonal Plan. In the opinion of this Court, a premise would not become business premise just because a lawyer read his office file or did some official work at his residence.

Thus, the High Court held that user of portion of house for consultation work by lawyer and study by his son cannot be termed as professional establishment and premises cannot be termed as business building and levy of property tax on such premises is illegal.

Comments are closed.