- Court
- Bombay High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- R. I. Chagla
- Outcome
- Set aside
Headnote
Order dismissing the opposition quashed and the opposition restored. The Registrar had treated the counter statement as served because it was properly addressed and posted. The Court held that the deemed service provision in section 27 of the General Clauses Act raises a rebuttable presumption, that the petitioner had placed sufficient material to rebut it, and that the onus then shifted to the Registrar, who failed to discharge it; Rule 15 of the 2002 Rules governs documents sent to the Registry and not documents sent by the Registrar, which is why Rule 18 was added in 2017. Having issued a notice to hear the matter on merits, the Registrar then dismissed the opposition on a technicality, which was an abdication of the duty to protect the parties' interests and to maintain the purity of the Register.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.