Bombay High Court : Delay Beyond Party’s Control Excluded Under Registration Act | Directs Registration Of 2018 Sale Agreements | Court Finds Restraint Order Caused Bona Fide Delay
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Bombay Division Bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale held that delay in presenting sale agreements for registration caused due to judicial restraint must be excluded when computing the statutory period of limitation under the Registration Act. The Court directed the registering authority to accept for registration two agreements for sale dated 6th March 2018, which had been previously refused due to delayed presentation beyond the four-month limitation period. The Court quashed the Sub-Registrar's refusal order dated 16th June 2025 and held that the time under restraint imposed by a judicial order ought not to count against the party presenting the document for registration.
The writ petitions concerned the registration of two Agreements for Sale executed on 6th March 2018 between a private limited liability partnership and a charitable trust. The trust, Vidhyarthi Sahayak Mandal, Sangli, sought to sell its immovable properties and had accordingly approached the Joint Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur, for permission under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.
By an order dated 31st January 2018, the Joint Charity Commissioner granted approval to the trust to alienate its properties to the petitioner. Following this permission, the Agreements for Sale were executed. However, before these agreements could be registered, legal proceedings were initiated by third parties with adverse interests. These proceedings culminated in the High Court issuing an interim order on 26th April 2018, restraining the trust from executing any deed of conveyance concerning the said properties.
According to the petitioner, these agreements had already been executed before the Court passed the restraint order. Nevertheless, due to the existence of the judicial restraint, the agreements were not submitted for registration. The writ petitions giving rise to the restraint order were eventually dismissed on 8th May 2025. Consequently, the petitioner presented the Agreements for Sale before the Sub-Registrar of Assurances-I, Jat, District-Sangli, for registration on 16th June 2025.
In the interim, the petitioner had deposited the requisite stamp duty with the Collector of Stamps, Sangli, on 30th May 2025, as per an earlier adjudication order dated 22nd February 2019. The Collector endorsed the documents under Section 41 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958.
The Sub-Registrar, however, declined registration, citing Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, which prescribes a four-month window for presenting documents from the date of execution. Since more than seven years had passed since the agreements were executed, the Sub-Registrar held that he had no authority to accept the documents for registration.
Aggrieved by this refusal, the petitioner approached the Bombay High Court, seeking quashing of the Registrar's refusal and a direction to accept the agreements for registration.
The Court acknowledged that the Agreements for Sale were indeed executed on 6th March 2018 and were presented on 16th June 2025. It recorded that there was no dispute as to the existence of ongoing proceedings in the High Court concerning the same properties and an interim order preventing alienation was in effect.
The Division Bench observed "It is not in dispute that the Agreements for Sale were executed on 6th March 2018 and the same were presented on 16th June 2025 i.e. after a period of more than seven years after its execution."
The Court further stated, "It is also undisputed that there were proceedings pending before this Court in respect of the Sale of the trust properties which were the subject matter of the Agreements for Sale."
Addressing the legal implications of the delay, the Bench relied on the precedent set in Nestor Builders and Developers Private Limited and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2015 SCC Online Bom. 3480, where the Court had interpreted Sections 23, 23A, 25, and 26 of the Registration Act, 1908.
Quoting from Nestor Builders, the Court reiterated "A cumulative reading of the said provisions clearly demonstrates the intention of the legislature that if a document in a given situation cannot be presented for registration within the period of four months prescribed under Section 23... then it can still be accepted for registration beyond the prescribed period... on account of a genuine cause beyond the control of such a party."
The Court concluded that the delay in the instant case was not attributable to any negligence or intent on the part of the petitioner. It specifically recorded "The bonafide delay beyond the control of the Petitioner clearly not attributable to any intentional or deliberate act or negligence on the part of the Petitioner, would be required to be excluded in permitting the Petitioner to avail registration of the documents in question."
Accordingly, the Court held that the restraint period between 26th April 2018 and 8th May 2025 must be excluded while computing the four-month limitation under the Registration Act.
The Court issued a clear and binding directive, setting aside the Sub-Registrar’s refusal. It stated "Considering the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the time taken during the pendency of the restraint order must be excluded while computing the period of limitation under the Registration Act."
The Court declared, "The orders assailed herein are quashed and set aside." It followed with the directive, "The Respondent No.2 is directed to accept the Agreements of Sale, both dated 6th March 2018 for registration under the provisions of Registration Act."
It concluded, "Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs." and directed, "All parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Prerak Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. R. S. Pawar, Assistant Government Pleader (WP-8411/2025); Ms. M. S. Bane, Assistant Government Pleader (WP-8412/2025)
Case Title: Grand Centrum Realty LLP v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:26796-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition Nos. 8411 of 2025 and 8412 of 2025
Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale
