Section 5 - The Legal Chamber

Illegal Memo Struck Down: Supreme Court Says Registration Certificate is Enough, No Need for Registrar’s Recommendation

3Mar

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Illegal Memo Struck Down: Supreme Court Says Registration Certificate is Enough, No Need for Registrar’s Recommendation

In this judgment, the Supreme Court held that executive mandates imposing superfluous requirements beyond statutory provisions constitute illegality in administrative law. It ruled that requiring a Cooperative Registrar's recommendation for stamp duty exemption under Section 9A of the Stamp Act is irrelevant and unnecessary, as a society's registration certificate is conclusive proof of its existence under Section 5(7) of the Cooperative Societies Act. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Adarsh Sahkari Grih Nirman Swawalambi Society Ltd., a cooperative society registered under the Jharkhand Self-Supporting Cooperative Societies Act, 1996, challenged an executive memorandum issued by the Principal Secretary of the Registration Department, Jharkhand. The impugned Memo No. 494, dated Fe...

Supreme Court Key Ruling: Tenant’s Defence Struck Out for Missing 30-Day Deposit Deadline

This Supreme Court held that the time limit under Section 7(1) and (2) of the WBPT Act for depositing admitted rent and filing an application is mandatory and cannot be extended by Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The proviso to Section 7(2) only permits an extension for paying the amount determined by the court post-adjudication, not for the initial statutory deposit and application. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School, is a tenant in a premises in Kolkata for which the admitted monthly rent was Rs. 1090. The respondents, the landlords, filed an ejectment suit on 11.06.2019 on grounds including arrears of rent. The summons for this suit was served upon the appellant-tenant on 29.09.2022. The statutory period of 30 days for compliance und...

Supreme Court Reins In Judicial Intervention in Arbitration After Appointment

This Supreme Court judgment holds that a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement has no legal right to be present in the arbitral proceedings as the award would not bind them, violating the confidentiality mandate under Section 42A. Furthermore, a court becomes functus officio after appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and cannot entertain subsequent applications for intervention or issue ancillary directions. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an oral family settlement between Pawan Gupta (PG) and Kamal Gupta (KG), later recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding/Family Settlement Deed (MoU/FSD) dated 09.07.2019, which was not signed by KG’s son, Rahul Gupta (RG). PG initiated proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitra...