Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1 2006(2) All MR 1;

 2     2006(1) BCR 6
 3     2012(2) BCR 810





   pvr                                    18               wp468-10.doc


 (iii)    It is submitted that the agreement dated 30 November 1996

executed between Ferani and Capstan was registered by deed of confirmation dated 29 June 2001 and therefore, cannot be accepted as a valid document, as a unilateral registration is not recognized under the Registration Act.

(iv) It is submitted that the society had already issued a share certificate in respect of the said premises to Ferani who was the developer and that if the order passed by the Deputy Registrar was to be implemented and not to be reversed by the impugned order, then the said premises would have two share certificates, which is ill-conceivable. It is submitted that in fact the disputes between Ferani and Capstan is already a subject matter of Suit No.232 of 2014 and a notice of motion is already filed by Capstan in the said suit for reliefs in respect of the said premises. It is submitted that thus the proper remedy for the petitioner is to file a dispute under Section 91 of the MCS Act, before the Co-operative Court for determination as to whether the petitioner is the owner or Capston or Ferani is the owner of the premises. To support this contention, a reference is made to the definition of "member" under Section2(19)(a) of MCS Act which would define a member to be a person who is duly admitted to membership of a society after registration, who can only be a "Member" in the present pvr 19 wp468-10.doc context. He submitted that considering the provisions under Section 17 read with Section 49 of the Registration Act,1908, no sanctity can be conferred on the deed of confirmation dated 29 June 2001 which unilaterally confirmed the agreement dated 30 November 1996 between Ferani and Capston. Referring to Section 25 of the MCS Act it is submitted that Ferani's membership can cease in law only on Ferani resigning from its membership or on transfer of whole of its share or interest in the society to another member, or on his death, or removal or expulsion of Ferani from the society or on dissolution of Ferani. It is therefore submitted that as none of the events as contemplated under Section 25 having taken place, the membership of Ferani cannot be said to have ceased. It is submitted that Section 27(1) of the MCS Act also provides for a principle that no member of any society shall have more than one vote, and thus if the petitioners' arguments are accepted, the situation would be that for one premises there would be two votes and this would be contrary to the provisions of Section 27 of the MCS Act. Referring to Section 29 of the MCS Act, it is submitted that there cannot be two share certificates in respect of one premises and this would be prohibited under Section 29 which imposes restrictions on transfer or charge of share or interest.