w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



D.V. Latha & Others v/s The Official Liquidator, The Mysore Kirloskar Ltd.(In Liqn.), Bangalore & Another

    Company Application No. 39 of 2018 in Company Petition No. 166 of 2001

    Decided On, 11 April 2018

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

    For the Applicants: Jagadeeshgoud Patil, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, Anupama Hebbar, R2, Y.S.H. Reddy, Advocates.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: This Company Application is filed under Rules 6 & 9 of the Companies Act, 1959, praying to issue direction, directing the respondent No.2 to register the sale deeds Dt.31/7/2017, 31/8/2017, which are accompanied along with Letter Dt.24/01/2018 at Annexure-D, as per order Dt.15/6/2017, passed by this Hon'ble Court in C.A.No.10/2017 and C.A.No.95/2017, produced at Annexure-A & B and also order Dt.03/01/2018, In C.A.No.371/2017 Vide Annexure-C, passed in favour of respective applicants, and etc.,)

1. This Company Application is filed by the Applicants seeking a direction to the Respondent No.2 to register the sale deeds dated 31.07.2017, 31.08.2017 which are accompanied by letter dated 24.01.2018 in terms of the order dated 15.06.2017 passed by this Court in C.A. Nos.10/2017 and 95/2017, produced at Annexures - A & B and also order dated 3.1.2018 in C.A. No.371/2017 vide Annexure-C, passed in favour of the respective applicants, inter alia, to secure personal appearance of the Respondent No.2 before this Court and take serious action in view of the set of circumstances stated in the present case.

2. The applicants had preferred C.A. No.371/2017 in Co.P. No.166/2001 making allegations against the Respondent No.2 for not registering the sale deeds. This Court considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, directed the Respondent No.2 to receive the documents if filed by the applicants for registration and proceed further in accordance with law. It was further observed that it is needless to mention that if any legal compliance is required, the same can only be indicated by the Respondent No.2 in writing to the applicants. It transpires, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, applicants submitted the documents for registration through their Counsel Sri. K.G.K. Swamy and the written representation was furnished, subsequent to which, the Respondent No.2 has issued the letter dated 25.01.2018 addressed to the learned Counsel who presented the documents for registration on behalf of the applicants, to comply the defects/deficiencies in submitting the documents for registration. Aggrieved by the inaction of the Respondent No.2 in not registering the sale deeds, as directed by this Court in C.A. No.371/2017 in Co.P. No.166/2001, the applicants have preferred this company application.

3. Learned Counsel, elaborating the arguments on these points, would submit that the applicants with the original documents including the original demand draft, were present along with their Counsel Mr. K.G.K. Swamy for presentation of the documents for registration of the sale deeds. However, the Respondent No.2 failed to register the sale deeds on some flimsy grounds referring to the Circular dated 6.4.2009, issued by the Government of Karnataka, which has already been considered by this Court earlier in C.A. No.371/2017 and was negatived. It is also pointed out that the Respondent No.2 directed the applicants to produce the khata certificate and the tax paid receipts issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike which has no relevance to the facts of the case since the properties in question are situated at Harihara Town. It is also submitted that about 43 sale deeds were already registered by the Respondent No.2 on the identical documents now presented before the Respondent No.2, the inaction of the Respondent No.2 in not registering the sale deeds, as directed by this Court, indicates the scant regard of the Respondent No.2 to the orders passed by this Court. Serious allegations are made against the Respondent No.2 demanding the bribe to register the sale deeds and accordingly seeks to take serious action against the Respondent No.2 in addition to directing for registration of the sale deeds.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 would submit that written representation was submitted by the applicants through their Counsel on 24.01.2018, which clearly demonstrates that the documents furnished for registration were xerox copies and not the originals. No registration can be made on the basis of the photocopies of the sale deeds. It is for want of original sale deeds, the same were not registered. The applicants suppressing the material facts, are making allegations against this respondent without any basis. It is the default committed by the applicants in not submitting the relevant documents for which this respondent cannot be blamed. It is submitted that in terms of Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, ['Act', for short] the sale deed dated 31.07.2017 executed by the Official Liquidator in favour of the Applicant No.1 was required to be presented for registration on or before 30.11.2017. Similarly, sale deeds dated 31.08.2017 executed by the Official Liquidator in favour of the Applicant Nos.3, 4 and 6 were required to be presented for registration on or before 31.12.2017. However, the applicants have failed and neglected to present the original sale deeds before the Respondent No.2 for registration even as on date. In terms of Section 25 of the Act, the time for presentation of the sale deed dated 31.07.2017 in respect of Applicant No.1 even with the fine amount has expired on 30.03.2018, in so far as Applicants 3, 4 and 6, time for presentation of the sale deeds dated 31.08.2017 on payment of fine of ten times of the registration fee expires on 30.04.2018. It is submitted that the Respondent No.2 being a Government Official, has highest regard and respect towards the orders passed by this Court. The Respondent No.2 has no objection to register the sale deeds in favour of the respective applicants, subject to the applicants complying with the legal formalities and producing the original sale deeds and documents for the purpose of registration. It is submitted that, in order to cover up the lapses on their part, the applicants have made reckless allegations that the Respondent No.2 demanded bribe for registration of the sale deeds and the same is denied.

5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the hands of learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.

6. The emphasized written representation at Annexure-D dated 24.01.2018 would clearly demonstrate that the documents furnished along with the written representation are the photocopies. However, it is further made clear that the originals of the aforesaid detailed documents are ready for presentation and accordingly request was made by learned Counsel appearing for the applicants to do the needful without making further delay as the orders passed by this Court being very specific. This document has been emphasized by learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 that what was presented for registration were only photocopies and not the original documents. In the absence of the original documents, the Respondent No.2 is not legally authorized to register the sale deeds contrary to law. No doubt the documents furnished were the photocopies along with the written representation, it is made very clear that the originals of the detailed documents are ready for presentation. This aspect of the matter negates the arguments of learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 that no original documents were presented for registration. It is trite that a document has to be read as a whole. A reading of this document Annexure-D manifestly makes it clear that the original documents were ready for presentation. Ordinarily, a prudent man would not enclose the original documents with any representation and it is only at the time of presentation, the original documents will be tendered. This is substantiated by the letter at Annexure-E addressed by the Respondent No.2 to the Counsel who represented the applicants before the Respondent No.2, whereby certain documents were called for, placing reliance on the Circular dated 6.4.2009 issued by the Government of Karnataka. The documents referred to in Annexure-E does not disclose the original sale deed. On the other hand, surprisingly, the khata certificate and tax paid receipts issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike has been called for to register the sale deeds pertaining to the property situated at Harihara.

7. In fact, if the registration was deferred/rejected for want of the original documents, the same would have been the primary documents to be called for in writing in the written compliance, Annexure-E. No such defects/deficiencies of want of original documents are made in the immediate reply/response, now the Respondent No.2 cannot improve the case banking upon the weakness, if any, on the part of the applicants in writing the details of documents furnished along with the written representation as xerox copies ignoring the subsequent paragraph where it is made clear that the original documents are ready for presentation.

8. On analyzing these aspects, more particularly, in the light of the order passed by this Court on 3.1.2018 in C.A. No.371/2017 in Co.P. No.166/2001, whereby this Court observed that though a reference is made in the objections to the Circular dated 6.4.2009 and copy of the same was brought to the notice of this Court, the details of the documents that were expected by the Respondent No.2 for the purpose of registration has not been adverted to in the objections. However, in any event, the legal compliance for the purpose of registration is necessary to be made by the person presenting the document for registration, if for any reason, the relevant document is not furnished, the concerned Sub-Registrar no doubt is required to receive the document, present it for registration, make necessary entries and keep the documents pending for registration, subject to such compliance. It was also observed that in the instant case, no such procedure has been followed by the Respondent No.2, but only a bald statement is made that necessary documents have not been produced. Now, as it is apparent from Annexure-E, it is the repetition of the objections raised in the first round, which has already been considered and a direction has been issued to the Respondent No.2, how to act upon

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

in the event no relevant documents are furnished. The conduct of the Respondent No.2 shows scant regard to the orders of this Court. It is trite that owing to the inaction on the part of the Respondent No.2 in not registering the sale deeds in time, provisions of Section 25 of the Act cannot be invoked to penalize the applicants against their vested right. If any delay had caused in registering the sale deeds, it is nothing but callous and arrogant attitude of the Respondent No.2 for which she has to compensate the applicants. 9. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER [a] The company application stands disposed of, directing the Respondent No.2 to receive the documents to be filed by the applicants for registration and shall register the same in accordance with law. [b] The applicants are directed to be present before the Respondent No.2 on 16.04.2018 with all original documents and the Respondent No.2 shall receive the documents and proceed with registration. [c] If any penal fees is liable to be paid by the applicants, the same shall be borne by the Respondent No.2.
O R