Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. A legal right accrued to the petitioners to get the document registered as per the provisions of the Registration Act PVR 12/17 wp1480-13.doc cannot stand defeated when such reasons exist which are beyond the control of the party presenting the document for registration.

The legal position in this regard has been succinctly enunciated in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case "Raj Kumar Dey and Others Vs. Tarapada Dey and Others, (AIR 1987 Supreme Court 2195)". This decision concerned registration of an Award dated 28 November 1977. In the proceedings adopted by the parties under the Arbitration Act,1940, the Award had remained in the custody of the Court. An application was made by the Arbitrators before the learned Sub-Judge to return back the Award to enable them to present the same before the Sub Registrar of registration. An order came to be passed in January,1980 on the said application whereby the learned Sub-Judge ordered return of the Award to the Arbitrators to enable them to present it for registration. This order of the learned Sub-Judge was set aside by the High of Calcutta by order dated on 6 March 1981 and it was held that during the subsistence of the interim injunction, the Arbitrators could not have taken back the Award for presenting the same for registration. In further proceedings on 24 November 1983 the Arbitrators got back the Award from the Court and on the next day i.e. on 25 November 1983 the Arbitrators presented the PVR 13/17 wp1480-13.doc Award before the Sub-Registrar who registered the Award on 25 November 1983. By order dated 19 June 1986 the High Court quashed the registration under Article 227 of the Constitution holding that the Award has been presented for registration beyond time. In considering the challenge to this order of the High Court, the Supreme Court while holding that the delay from the period 20 November 1977 to 25 November 1983 (about 6 years) was rightly excluded by the Sub-Registrar. In Paragraphs 6 and 7 the Supreme Court has observed thus:-

PVR 14/17 wp1480-13.doc

7. In this case indisputably during the period from 26th of July, 1978 to 20th December, 1982 there was subsisting injunction preventing the arbitrators from taking any steps. Furthermore, as noted before the award was in the custody of the court, that is to say, 28th of January, 1978 till the return of the award to the arbitrators on 24th of 124 November, 1983, the arbitrators or the parties could not have presented the award for its registration during that time. The award as we have noted before was made on 28th of November, 1977 and before the expiry of the four months from 28th November, 1977, the award was filed in the court pursuant to the order of the court. It was argued that the order made by the court directing the arbitrators to keep the award in the custody of the court was wrong and without jurisdiction, but no arbitrator could be compelled to disobey the order of the court and if in compliance or obedience with court of doubtful jurisdiction, he could not take back the award from the custody of the court to take any further steps for its registration then it cannot be said that he has failed to get the award registered as the law required.