Del. HC: Liquidated Damages Mentioned in Agreement Can’t be Awarded in Absence of Proof of Loss  ||  MP HC: S.375 Marital Sex Exemption Also Provides Exemption Under Section 377 of IPC  ||  SC: SARFAESI Doesn’t Give Any License to Bank Officers to Act Against the Scheme of Law  ||  All. HC: Court Can’t Mechanically Reject Application for Waiving Off Cooling Period u/s 13B of HMA  ||  Kar. HC: Acquittal Order Can’t be Put in Challenge by Stranger to the Case  ||  Kar. HC: Alternate Remedy Can’t be Used as China Wall Against Invocation of Writ Jurisdiction  ||  Bom. HC Upholds Constitutional Validity of Goa’s Green Cess Act  ||  Del. HC: Not Court’s Business to Demonstrate Morality of an Act unless it has Caused Harm  ||  Del. HC: Cost Accountants and Chartered Accountants Not Similarly Placed Under Law  ||  SC: No Party Ought to be Vexed Twice in a Litigation for One and the Same Cause    

Ramchandra and Ors. Vs. Kiran and Ors. - (High Court of Bombay) (10 Jun 2019)

When right, title and interest was being created in immovable property exceeding value of Rs. 100, award was required to be duly registered



In present case, dismissal of the execution proceedings seeking to execute an award passed by an Arbitrator on the ground that, said award was unregistered is the subject matter of challenge. Petitioners submitted that, the Executing Court erred in dismissing the execution proceedings. It was not necessary to have the award registered in view of the fact that the same did not create any new rights in the parties and the rights already existing had been adjudicated upon.

It is not in dispute that, the proceedings in the civil suit filed between the parties had been referred to the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator included various properties in which the parties had interest and passed his award. It can be seen from the award that, the Petitioner and the Respondent no. 3 on one hand have been held to be absolute owners of some of the properties in which the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are required to relinquish their rights. Similarly, in other properties, the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 have been held to be joint owners and the Petitioner and the Respondent no. 3 have to relinquish their rights in those properties.

As per the provisions of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, it is clear that in any testamentary document purporting to create or declare any right, title or interest in any immovable property exceeding value of Rs. 100 is compulsory registrable. On reading of the entire award, it becomes clear that, ownership rights in favour of the parties has been created with regard to some of the properties and they have been called upon to relinquish their rights with regard to other properties. It is therefore evident that, since the right, title and interest was being created in immovable property exceeding the value of Rs. 100, the award was required to be duly registered. In absence of such registration, the award cannot be executed.

It is thus found that, the Executing Court was legally correct in coming to the conclusion that, as the award that was sought to be executed was not registered, the execution proceedings were not tenable. There is no reason to interfere with the said order. It is open for the Petitioner to have the award registered and thereafter take such steps as are permissible in law to execute the award, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved