Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
YOGESH KUMAR MALIK - Petitioner
Versus
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 559 of 2016, CM APPL. 2316-2317 & 26412 of 2016
Decided On : 17-04-2018
Registration of a document takes effect when it is first duly presented for registration, not on the date of registration.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for an LPG distributorship under various categories across National Capital Territory of Delhi. As per clause-9 of the advertisement, the applications had to be filed before the closing of office on 10.10.2013. The petitioner in pursuance of the advertisement had obtained interest in two immovable properties via two separate lease deeds of even date. One lease deed was executed for the purpose of setting up a showroom while the other was executed for the purpose of obtaining land for a godown. The petitioner applied to be appointed as a distributor in Sector-18, Rohini, Delhi (hereafter referred to as “subject location”). The petitioner, as indicated above, on 10.10.2013 presented the aforementioned lease deeds before the concerned Sub Registrar for the purposes of registration. Requisite stamp duty was paid by the petitioner. Consequent thereto, the lease deed executed for the purpose of setting up a showroom, was accorded registration no.5228, and the lease deed executed for the purpose of obtaining land for the godown, was allocated registration no.5229. Having presented the lease deeds before the Sub Registrar, for the purposes of registration, the petitioner filed his applications with IOCL along with requisite enclosures and a demand draft in the sum of Rs.1000/-. On 14.10.2013, the concerned Sub Registrar issued certificates under Section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908 (in short “1908 Act”). The certificates were issued for both lease deeds which were accorded registration nos.5228 and 5229. Since the language of the two certificates are identical, except the page numbers of the book in which their details are entered, I am setting out, for the sake of convenience, the relevant particulars of the certificate issued in the lease deed pertaining to the showroom :- “Certificate (Section 60) Registration No.5228 in Book No.1, Vol. No.3,147 on page 151 to 155 on this date 11/10/2013 15:31:19 day Friday and left thumb impressions has/have been taken in my presence. Sub Registrar Sub Registrar VI B New Delhi/Delhi Date 14/10.2013 10:32:46”. IOCL, on 25.7.2014, declared names of the applicants who were eligible for selection as distributors, inter alia, qua Sector-18, Rohini. Pertinently, the petitioner and his sister Ms. Deepika were the only applicants for the said location. Ms. Deepika, it appears, did not pursue her application which left the petitioner as the sole claimant for being appointed as a distributor in respect of the subject location. Given this background, IOCL organized a draw on 18.10.2014 and declared the petitioner as a successful candidate qua the subject location. Consequently, via communication dated 20.10.2014, the petitioner was requested by IOCL to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards security. The petitioner complied with this request and deposited the amount via the demand draft dated 25.10.2014, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, which was received by IOCL on 27.10.2014. It appears that IOCL got a field verification done, whereupon, a communication dated 02.02.2015 was addressed to the petitioner. As indicated at the outset, via this communication, the petitioner’s candidature was rejected and the security amount deposited by him in the sum of Rs.50,000/- was forfeited for having purportedly violated the clause 11(h) of the advertisement issued by IOCL. The petitioner sent his response to the impugned communication dated 02.02.2015. In his response, the petitioner emphasised the fact that if one were to have regard to Section 75 (3) of the 1908 Act, the registration would take effect from the date when the document was first duly presented for registration. Thus, in effect, the petitioner contended that since the subject lease deeds were presented on 10.10.2013, in terms of Section 75 (3), they would be deemed to have been registered on 10.10.2013 and not on 11.10.2013, as was indicated in the impugned communication dated 02.02.2015.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the registration of a document takes effect when it is first duly presented for registration, not on the date of registration. The court found that the petitioner had presented the lease deeds for registration on 10.10.2013, which was before the last date for submission of applications. Therefore, the court held that the petitioner had met the eligibility criteria and was entitled to be issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) for the LPG distributorship.
Issues: Whether the registration of a document takes effect when it is first duly presented for registration, or on the date of registration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 75(3) of the Registration Act, 1908, which states that a registered document shall operate from the time it is intended to operate by the parties if no registration thereof had been required in law or made, and not from the date of its registration. The court also relied on the case of T.V. Kalyana Sundaram Pillai v. Karuppa Mooppanar & Ors., AIR 1927 PC 42, in which the Privy Council held that the registration of a gift deed takes effect from the date of execution, not from the date of registration.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned communications of IOCL, and directed IOCL to consider issuance of an LOI in favour of the petitioner within two weeks of receipt of the copy of the judgment.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
Prefactory Facts
1. This writ petition raises a very interesting question, which is, when does registration of a document take effect? The documents in issue in the instant case are two separate lease deeds of even date i.e., 9.10.2013. They were presented for registration before the concerned Sub Registrar on 10.10.2013, while the certificate of registration under Section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908 (in short “1908 Act”) was issued on 14.10.2013.
2. The petitioner, inter alia, places reliance on Section 75 (3) of the 1908 Act to contend that the registration of the aforementioned lease deeds would take effect when they were first duly presented for registration before the concerned Sub Registrar, i.e., on 10.10.2013 whereas the first respondent, i.e., Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (in short “IOCL”) contends that since certificate of registration under Section 61 of the very same Act was issued on 14.10.2013, the registration stood completed only on that date.
3. The petitioner has also adverted to Section 47 of the 1908 Act to contend that the registration relates back to the date when the concerned document was first executed. The reason IOCL takes a contra stand is that the petitioner who was otherwise intimated that his candidature for appointment as a distributor for LPG gas had been accepted, was informed subsequently via communication dated 2.2.2015 that his candidature had been rejected, and the amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by him stood forfeited in accordance with clause 11 (h) of the advertisement issued by it.
4. As is obvious, the petitioner, on the other hand, has taken a stand that the date given on the lease deeds and the date of presentation was important, (both of which were prior to the last date fixed for submissions of applications which was 10.10.2013) and not the date when the certificate of registration was issued.
5. The controversy in the present case, as alluded to at the outset, revolves around this piquant issue. Thus, in order to adjudicate upon the instant petition, the following broad facts are required to be noticed :-
6. IOCL along with other oil marketing companies such as Bharat Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. (for short “BPCL”) and Hindustan Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. (for short “HPCL”) had issued a common advertisement in two newspapers having English and Hindi editions, calling for applications for appointment as LPG distributors under various categories across National Capital Territory of Delhi. As per clause 9 of the said advertisement, the applications had to be filed before the closing of office on 10.10.2013.
7. The petitioner in pursuance of the aforementioned advertisement had obtained interest in two immovable properties via two separate lease deeds of even date. One lease deed was executed for the purpose of setting up a showroom while the other was executed for the purpose of obtaining land for a godown. Insofar as the latter lease deed was concerned, the petitioner’s sister, one, Ms. Deepika was co-lessee. It is important to bear in mind that the petitioner had applied for being appointed as a LPG Distributor in the category of open government personnel which included defence personnel. This category enabled wards of the government personnel, who had lost their lives while performing their duty to apply for LPG distributorship. The petitioner had applied to be appointed as a distributor in Sector-18, Rohini, Delhi (hereafter referred to as “subject location”).
8. The petitioner, as indicated above, on 10.10.2013 presented the aforementioned lease deeds before the concerned Sub Registrar for the purposes of registration. Requisite stamp duty was paid by the petitioner. Consequent thereto, the lease deed executed for the purpose of setting up a showroom, was accorded registration no.5228, and the lease deed executed for the purpose of obtaining land for the godown, w
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
