Skip to main content

A registering authority has to stay within the statue prescribed for it

In Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Vs. State Transport Authority, the issue before the Orissa High Court was that the Transport Authority was refusing endorsement and termination of the hypothecation in the certificate of registration as according to the authority the company's trade license has expired.

The Court held that, as the power has been vested with the registering authority by the statute prescribing the manner of endorsement and termination of the hypothecation in the certificate of registration, the registering authority has to discharge its duty, without taking into consideration any ancillary or corollary reasons, in consonance with the provisions contained under Section 51 of the Act, 1988 read with Rules, 60 and 61 of the Rules, 1989. As such, the registering authority cannot refuse endorsement of hypothecation and cancellation thereof in the certificate of registration on the grounds not permissible in law.

It is apt to refer here the legal maxim “Expressio Unius est exclusion alterius” i.e. if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and any other manner are barred. Similar question had come up for consideration before this Court in Subash Chandra Nayak (supra) and this Court in paragraph-8 observed as follows:

In view of the above settled position of law, there is no doubt that if an action is required to be undertaken in a particular manner, then that has to be done in that manner or not at all. Therefore, applying the same to the present context, if the statute specifically provides the manner in which the hypothecation endorsement is to be entered into the certificate of registration and the termination thereof, when an application is made, as has been provided under the statute in Rules 60 and 61 of the Rules, 1989 in the prescribed forms, i.e., Forms-34 and 35 along with the fees, then the registering authority cannot have any option than to follow the law as prescribed under the Act, 1988 read with Rules, 1989. As such, the registering authority cannot and could not have refused to make endorsement or terminate the hypothecation in the certificate of registration, because the financer has not renewed the trade certificate for doing its business in the State. The grant of trade certificate to a financer is only confined to Rule 41(h) of the Rules, 1989. Therefore, the financer cannot use trade certificate for any purpose other than specified under the Rule 41(h) of the Rules, 1989. Thus, the action of the registering authority in refusing to make endorsement of hypothecation and cancellation thereof in the certificate of registration, in the name of renewal of trade certificate, amounts to, not only arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power, but also contrary to the provisions of law.

Comments

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...