{"id":60855,"date":"2009-05-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dilip-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-5-may-2009"},"modified":"2017-11-21T04:26:02","modified_gmt":"2017-11-20T22:56:02","slug":"shri-dilip-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-5-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dilip-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-5-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shri Dilip vs The Divisional Joint Registrar on 5 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Shri Dilip vs The Divisional Joint Registrar on 5 May, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: C. L. Pangarkar<\/div>\n
                                             1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n               NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR.\n\n              WRIT PETITION NO.4523 OF 2008.\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n    PETITIONER:        Shri Dilip s\/o Devaji Yenorkar,\n                       aged 38 years, Occu: Nil, r\/o\n                       Rajguru Ward, Bhandara.\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n                               -VERSUS -\n                      \n    RESPONDENTS: 1. The Divisional Joint Registrar,<\/pre>\n
                    Co-operative Societies, Nagpur.\n<\/p>\n
                    2. The Assistant Regisgtrar, Coopertive
\n                       Societies, Bhandara.\n<\/p>\n
                    3. Shri H.D.Kuhikar, Offixer Grade-II,<\/p>\n
                       Administrator, Hindustan Nagari
\n                       Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Bhadara.\n<\/p>\n
                    4. Hindustan Nagari Sahakari Pat
\n                       Sanstha Ltd., Bhandara, through its
\n                       Manager.\n<\/p>\n
                    5. Shri Rambhau s\/o Tukaram Sakharkar,
\n                       aged about 57 years, Occu: Agrist.\n<\/p>\n
                       R\/o Santaji Ward, Bhandara.\n<\/p>\n
                    6. Smt.Sushilabai w\/o Shamraoji Pahune,
\n                       aged about 66 years, Occu: Agrist.\n<\/p>\n
                       R\/o Shivaji Ward, Bhandara.\n<\/p>\n
                    7. Shri Shantaram s\/o Gangaram Nagpure<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:34:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
         aged about 61 years, Occu: Business,
\n         R\/o Rajgopalachari Ward, Bhandara.\n<\/p>\n
       8. Shri Shamrao s\/o Tukaram Bhongade,
\n          aged about 63 years, Occu: Agrist.\n<\/p>\n
          r\/o Baba Nagar, Bhandara.\n<\/p>\n
       9. Shri Madhukar s\/o Kisanji Mendhe,
\n          aged about 66 years, Occu: Retired,
\n          R\/o Shivaji Ward, Bhandara.\n<\/p>\n
      10. Shri Kundalik s\/o Ganesh Barai,<\/p>\n
          aged about 46 years, Occu: Business,
\n          R\/o Shivaji Ward, Bhandara.\n<\/p>\n
      11. Shri Gajanan s\/o Mahadeo Badwaik,
\n          aged about 41 years, Occu: Business,
\n          R\/o Suyog Nagar, Bhandara.\n<\/p>\n
      12. Shri Waman Pandurang Madankar,
\n          aged about 41 years, Occu: Business,<\/p>\n
          r\/o Suyog Nagar, Bhandara.\n<\/p>\n
      13. Shri Avinash Pandurang Dalal,
\n          aged about 58 years, Occu: Business,<\/p>\n
          R\/o Rajgopalachari Ward, Bhandara.\n<\/p>\n
      14. Shri Suryabhan Chambharuji Gabhane,
\n          aged 56 years, Occu: Nil, r\/o Kranti Ward
\n          Bhandara.\n<\/p>\n
      15. Sau.Vaishali w\/o Vonod Sakharkar,
\n          aged about 32 years, Occu: Nil,
\n          R\/o Shivaji Ward, Bhandara.\n<\/p>\n
                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:34:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
                        16. Shri Rajiumar Tukaramji Sakharkar,
\n                            aged about 42 years, Occu: Agrist.\n<\/p>\n
                            R\/o Shivaji Ward, Bhandara.\n<\/p>\n
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<\/p>\n
    Mr.R.L.Khapre, Adv. for the petitioner.
\n    Mr. P.S.Tidke Adv. for respondent no.5.
\n    Mr.T.A.Mirza,AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2.
\n    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<\/p>\n
                         Coram: C.L.PANGARKARJ.\n<\/p>\n
                         Dated : 5th MAY, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT:\n<\/p>\n
    1.       Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.                            Heard<\/p>\n
    finally with consent of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
    2.       This writ petition is preferred against the order<\/p>\n
    passed   by   the    Divisional      Joint        Registrar,      Cooperative<\/p>\n
    Societies, Nagpur, whereby he allowed the appeal preferred<\/p>\n
    by respondent nos.5 to 16.\n<\/p>\n
    3.       The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows –\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:34:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
              The petitioner is the member of the society known<\/p>\n
    as Hindustahan Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. Bhandara.\n<\/p>\n
    Respondents nos.5 to 16 are the Board of Directors of the<\/p>\n
    Cooperative Society.       The said Society is registered.                              The<\/p>\n
    petitioner, who is the member of the said Society noticed<\/p>\n
    certain irregularities committed by respondents no.5 to 16.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore, he made complaint to the Assistant Registrar of<\/p>\n
    Cooperative Society, Bhandara.                        The Assistant Registrar<\/p>\n
    Cooperative Societies accordingly appointed Shri R.N.Vasu<\/p>\n
    to submit enquiry report. Said Vasu conducted an enquiry<\/p>\n
    and submitted report on 9\/2\/2007 in which he found many<\/p>\n
    irregularities.       The Enquiry Officer also found that the<\/p>\n
    respondent nos.5 to 16 have not furnished a bond as<\/p>\n
    contemplated by Section 73 of the Maharashtra Cooperative<\/p>\n
    Societies Act. In pursuance to the said report, respondent<\/p>\n
    no.2   i.e.   the   Assistant       Registrar           issued         a     notice        to<\/p>\n
    respondents no.5 to 16 calling their explanation.                                     They<\/p>\n
    submitted     their    explanation.                   After     considering              the<\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:34:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
    explanation as well as the complaint and after giving<\/p>\n
    opportunities to the parties, respondent                       no.2 passed<\/p>\n
    an   order   under   Section      78(1)        of   the       Maharashtra<\/p>\n
    Cooperative Societies Act superseding the                   Committee of<\/p>\n
    respondents no.5 to 16 and appointing an administrator.\n<\/p>\n
    The said order was challenged before the Divisional Joint<\/p>\n
    Registrar by respondents no.5 to 16 under Section 152 of<\/p>\n
    the M.C.S. Act by way of appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    4.      The Joint registrar disagreeing with the finding of<\/p>\n
    the Assistant Registrar allowed the appeal and quashed the<\/p>\n
    order and being aggrieved by that, this writ petition has<\/p>\n
    been preferred.\n<\/p>\n
    5.      I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
    and the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
    6.      The foremost contention that is raised by the<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:34:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
    learned counsel for the respondents is that the writ petition<\/p>\n
    in the instant case is not maintainable since an efficacious<\/p>\n
    remedy is available under Section 154 of the Maharashtra<\/p>\n
    Cooperative Societies Act by way of revision.                    Shri Tidke<\/p>\n
    learned counsel for the respondents submits that the<\/p>\n
    Assistant Registrar passed an order under Section 78 of the<\/p>\n
    Act and the petitioner had preferred an appeal under<\/p>\n
    Section 152 of the Act before the Joint Registrar. He submits<\/p>\n
    that as against an order of the Joint Registrar, a revision lies<\/p>\n
    under section 154 (2) of the Act. Section 154 reads as<\/p>\n
    follows –\n<\/p>\n
           “154(2) – Under this Section, the revision
\n           shall lie to the State Government if the<\/p>\n
           decision or order is passed by the Registrar,
\n           the Additional Registrar or a Joint Registrar,
\n           and to the Registrar if passed by any other<\/p>\n
           officer.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    7.          It is clear from the Section that a revision could be<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:34:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
    filed before the Government against the order of the Joint<\/p>\n
    Registrar.   Shri Khapre, learned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
    submits that even if a remedy by way of revision may be<\/p>\n
    available that does not necessarily bar a writ petition. He<\/p>\n
    contends that when order passed is patently illegal and<\/p>\n
    without jurisdiction, a writ petition does lie.           He contends<\/p>\n
    that an appeal to the Joint Registrar could lie only as against<\/p>\n
    the order under section 78 of the Act and the Assistant<\/p>\n
    Registrar had also passed an order under Section 73(1AB) of<\/p>\n
    the Act which is not an order under Section 78 and<\/p>\n
    therefore, the Joint Registrar could not have entertained an<\/p>\n
    appeal as against that part of the order.            It is clear from<\/p>\n
    Section 152 that an appeal against order under Section<\/p>\n
    73(1AB) is not provided         under Section 152.                Learned<\/p>\n
    counsel for the petitioner submits that Joint Registrar<\/p>\n
    therefore had no jurisdiction to set aside the order under<\/p>\n
    section 73(1AB) while entertaining an appeal under section<\/p>\n
    152.   I do not find substance in the contention.                  Section<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:34:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
    73(1AB) reads as follows –\n<\/p>\n
         “73(1AB) The members of the Committee shall
\n         be jointly and severally responsible for all the<\/p>\n
         decisions taken by the committee during its
\n         term relating to the business of the society.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         The members of the committee shall be jointly
\n         and severally resp0onsible for all the acts and<\/p>\n
         omissions detrimental to the interest of the
\n         society.   Every such member shall execute a<\/p>\n
         bond to that effect within fifteen days of his
\n         assuming the office, in the form as specified by<\/p>\n
         the State Government by general or special
\n         order. The member who fails to execute such<\/p>\n
         bond within the specified period shall be
\n         deemed to have vacated his office as a<\/p>\n
         member of the Committee.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    8.       The section says that where the elected members<\/p>\n
    fail to furnish bond within fifteen days of assuming the<\/p>\n
    office, they shall be deemed to have vacated the office. It is<\/p>\n
    by deeming fiction that the member looses his office and<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:34:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
    right to hold it. In fact, no order of such vacation as such<\/p>\n
    would be necessary. By operation of law they cease to hold<\/p>\n
    such office.   The office of the member, therefore, falls<\/p>\n
    vacant on 16th day upon failure to execute the bond. There<\/p>\n
    is, however, no doubt that the Assistant Registrar will have<\/p>\n
    to verify the position as to whether such bond was<\/p>\n
    executed and furnished or not within stipulated time to take<\/p>\n
    further necessary steps.       Such verification would all the<\/p>\n
    more be necessary to confirm that the office has fallen<\/p>\n
    vacant.   In the instant case, none of the members had<\/p>\n
    furnished bond and as such office had fallen vacant. This<\/p>\n
    fact that the respondent had failed to execute the bond<\/p>\n
    came to the notice of the Registrar only after                    he took<\/p>\n
    inspection. He could not have, therefore, taken any action<\/p>\n
    under Section 78 unless it was confirmed that the bonds<\/p>\n
    were not furnished within the stipulated time.                     After it<\/p>\n
    comes to the knowledge of the Registrar that the said post<\/p>\n
    of the member has fallen vacant and the member ceases to<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:34:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 10<\/span><\/p>\n
    hold office, the Registrar can then alone                proceed under<\/p>\n
    Section 78 of the Act. Beside Section 78 of the Act, there is<\/p>\n
    no other provision in the Act to take care of contingencies<\/p>\n
    where all members of the Committee are deemed to have<\/p>\n
    vacated the office. Section 78 says that when a member of<\/p>\n
    the committee has ceased to discharge his function or<\/p>\n
    when such member stands disqualified, the Registrar is to<\/p>\n
    remove    them     and   appoint          another     committee              and<\/p>\n
    administrator.   Thus, whenever a disqualification occurs<\/p>\n
    under Section 73(1AB), the Registrar would no doubt be<\/p>\n
    required to take steps under Section 78 of the Act. There<\/p>\n
    is, therefore, to my mind only one order under Section 78<\/p>\n
    after the deemed vacation of the office.                     There is no<\/p>\n
    separate order under Section 73(1AB) and no separate<\/p>\n
    order under the said Section is contemplated.                                The<\/p>\n
    Registrar had, therefore, necessarily passed an order under<\/p>\n
    Section 78 only.    Consequently an appeal under Section<\/p>\n
    152 was rightly entertained by the Registrar.                          I have<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:34:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
    already pointed out that the revision against an order of the<\/p>\n
    Joint Registrar can be filed before the Government.\n<\/p>\n
    9.         This takes me to the contention whether the writ<\/p>\n
    petition   should,   therefore,             be     entertained          or      not.\n<\/p>\n
    According to Shri Khapre, learned counsel for the petitioner,<\/p>\n
    since part of the order of Joint Registrar is without<\/p>\n
    jurisdiction, the writ petition is maintainable. The foregoing<\/p>\n
    discussions would show that there is only one order under<\/p>\n
    Section 78 and no order under Section 73(1AB) of the Act<\/p>\n
    and I have also found that the appeal was rightly<\/p>\n
    entertained by the Joint Registrar. The order passed by him<\/p>\n
    is, therefore, not without jurisdiction.             Mr. Khapre relied on<\/p>\n
    the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Supreme<\/p>\n
    Court   Service   Rulings     (Vo.2),          129    Dr.(Smt.)         Kuntesh<\/p>\n
    Gupta .vs.. MGT of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya) and                                AIR<\/p>\n
    1999 SC 22 (Whirlpool Corporation ..vs.. Registrar of Trade<\/p>\n
    Marks, Mumbai). These decisions have no bearing on the<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:34:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                       12<\/span><\/p>\n
    case at hand as the order is not one without jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
    Similarly     in   a     decision       reported          in      2003(2)             SCC<\/p>\n
    107(Harbanslal Sahnia and anr. ..vs..                                     Indial Oil<\/p>\n
    Corpn. Ltd. And ors.), the Supreme Courts holds that the<\/p>\n
    High Court may entertain the writ petition in three<\/p>\n
    contingencies.         (i)    Where         the        writ      petition          seeks<\/p>\n
    enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where<\/p>\n
    there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where<\/p>\n
    orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the<\/p>\n
    where virus of an Act is challenged.                      None of the above<\/p>\n
    contingencies exists in the case at hand.\n<\/p>\n
    10.         Shri Khapre, learned counsel for the petitioner,<\/p>\n
    contends before me that the revision under Section 154 of<\/p>\n
    the Act is not an adequate remedy.                       He contends that if<\/p>\n
    Section 154 is read, it would be clear that the Government<\/p>\n
    may or may not entertain a revision. I am unable to agree<\/p>\n
    to the submission.           Revisional power can be exercised by<\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:34:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  13<\/span><\/p>\n
    the State of its own motion or upon an application and it<\/p>\n
    can decide the legality and propriety of the decision under<\/p>\n
    challenge.   Shri Khapre had relied upon a decision of this<\/p>\n
    court reported in 1999 (3) Mh.L.J. 982 (Balasaheb<\/p>\n
    Kondiram Pawar ..vs.. State of Mah.).                             The court<\/p>\n
    observes as follows –\n<\/p>\n
              5. It is, therefore, clear that the party
\n              cannot claim as a matter of right to move<\/p>\n
              the   Government          for      revision    of     the
\n              impugned orders.           If that is so, section
\n              154 cannot be called as an alternative<\/p>\n
              and efficacious remedy.                 The Supreme<\/p>\n
              Court   has   indeed,         a very       succinctly
\n              described section 154 being potential but
\n              not compulsive. This power is reposed in<\/p>\n
              Government to intervene to do justice
\n              when occasion demands it and of the
\n              occasion for its exercise, the Government<\/p>\n
              is made the sole Judge. According to me,
\n              therefore, the present writ petition is
\n              maintainable.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:34:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                       14<\/span><\/p>\n
    The very same learned judge while dealing with the<\/p>\n
    provisions of Section 152 and 154 of the act observes as<\/p>\n
    follows in another decision reported in 1999(1) Mh.L.J.\n<\/p>\n
    619   (Prabhu     Shriram             Sahakari          Dudh           Vyawasaik<\/p>\n
    Sanstha   Maryadit,         Ahmednagar                       ..vs..       State         of<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra ).\n<\/p>\n
              “4. ………     The orders passed by the<\/p>\n
              Registrar under Section 9 of the Act to
\n              register or not to register a co-operative
\n              society are challengable under Section<\/p>\n
              152 of the Act by filing an appeal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Section         152       provides           for      appeals
\n              against the orders or decisions under<\/p>\n
              Sections 4,9 etc. (we are concerned with
\n              these      two        sections).              Full-fledged
\n              appellate authoritiesd are prescribed
\n              and they are armed with the regular<\/p>\n
              powers of appellate forums. A complete
\n              hierarchy is also given under the said
\n              Section.        The decisions or orders or<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:34:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   15<\/span><\/p>\n
                 awards passed are treated as final
\n                 subject to the provisions for revision in<\/p>\n
                 the Act.      Similarly, section 154 has
\n                 vested the State Government with the<\/p>\n
                 revisionary    powers.                Even      in     this
\n                 section, minute hierarchy is created
\n                 with the powers.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    11.<\/p>\n
               Upon going through the section itself, it is clear<\/p>\n
    that an adequate remedy by way of revision is available.\n<\/p>\n
    The authority      i.e. The State can certainly go into the<\/p>\n
    question of legality and propriety of the order under<\/p>\n
    challenge. I do not find upon going through the scope of<\/p>\n
    Section 154 that the remedy provided is in any way<\/p>\n
    inadequate.       The supreme Court in a recent decision<\/p>\n
    reported     in   (2006)5     SCC           469      (A.P.Foods                 ..vs..\n<\/p>\n
    S.Samuel and ors.) observes as follows –\n<\/p>\n
                6. In a catena of decisions it has been held<\/p>\n
                that a writ petition under Article 226 of the<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:34:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                         16<\/span><\/p>\n
     Constitution     of      India          should       not       be<\/p>\n
     entertained when the statutory remedy is<\/p>\n
     available under the Act, unless exceptional<\/p>\n
     circumstances are made out.\n<\/p>\n
     12. A bare reading of Section 22 of the Act<\/p>\n
     makes the position clear that where the<\/p>\n
     dispute arises between an employer and<\/p>\n
     employees       with     respect         to     the      bonus<\/p>\n
     payable under the Act or with respect to the<\/p>\n
     application of the Act in public sector then<\/p>\n
     such dispute shall be deemed to be an<\/p>\n
     industrial dispute jwithin the meaning of the<\/p>\n
     ID Act.\n<\/p>\n
     13. As disputed questions of fact were<\/p>\n
     involved,   and         alternative           remedy             is<\/p>\n
     available under the ID Act, the High Court<\/p>\n
     should    not    have        entertained           the       writ<\/p>\n
     petition, and should have directed the writ<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:34:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                17<\/span><\/p>\n
              petitioners to avail the statutory remedy.”\n<\/p>\n
    12.     Thus, the clear ratio is that the court should not<\/p>\n
    entertain when statutory remedy is available                     We have<\/p>\n
    seen that the revision does lie to the State Government<\/p>\n
    against the order of Joint Registrar.\n<\/p>\n
                          ig                        The remedy is both<\/p>\n
    adequate and efficacious. When a particular forum is<\/p>\n
    provided that remedy must be availed.              The restraint has<\/p>\n
    to be observed or else the High Court would be flooded with<\/p>\n
    litigation and the very purpose of creating alternate forum<\/p>\n
    would be defeated. That has to be avoided and the forum<\/p>\n
    created under the Act must be left to deal with the<\/p>\n
    disputes. Therefore, I do not find that the writ petition can<\/p>\n
    be entertained. Same is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                      JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
    chute<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:34:44 :::<\/span>
\n                              18<\/span><\/p>\n
                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:34:44 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Shri Dilip vs The Divisional Joint Registrar on 5 May, 2009 Bench: C. L. Pangarkar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.4523 OF 2008. PETITIONER: Shri Dilip s\/o Devaji Yenorkar, aged 38 years, Occu: Nil, r\/o Rajguru Ward, Bhandara. -VERSUS – RESPONDENTS: 1. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60855","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Dilip vs The Divisional Joint Registrar on 5 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dilip-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-5-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Dilip vs The Divisional Joint Registrar on 5 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dilip-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-5-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-20T22:56:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-dilip-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-5-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-dilip-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-5-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Dilip vs The Divisional Joint Registrar on 5 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-20T22:56:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-dilip-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-5-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2451,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-dilip-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-5-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-dilip-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-5-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-dilip-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-5-may-2009\",\"name\":\"Shri Dilip vs The Divisional Joint Registrar on 5 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-20T22:56:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-dilip-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-5-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-dilip-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-5-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-dilip-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-5-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Dilip vs The Divisional Joint Registrar on 5 May, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shri Dilip vs The Divisional Joint Registrar on 5 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dilip-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-5-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Dilip vs The Divisional Joint Registrar on 5 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dilip-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-5-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-20T22:56:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dilip-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-5-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dilip-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-5-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Dilip vs The Divisional Joint Registrar on 5 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-20T22:56:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dilip-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-5-may-2009"},"wordCount":2451,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dilip-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-5-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dilip-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-5-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dilip-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-5-may-2009","name":"Shri Dilip vs The Divisional Joint Registrar on 5 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-20T22:56:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dilip-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-5-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dilip-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-5-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dilip-vs-the-divisional-joint-registrar-on-5-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Dilip vs The Divisional Joint Registrar on 5 May, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60855","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=60855"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60855\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60855"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60855"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60855"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}