- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Tushar Rao Gedela
- Outcome
- Rectification allowed
Headnote
Eight registrations saved from removal for non-renewal. The Court held that section 25(3) places a positive obligation on the Registry to issue the O-3 notice even where the proprietor has failed to take steps for renewal, and that generating a notice is not the same as sending or dispatching it: generation alone does not discharge the statutory obligation. It also read the words "may remove" in section 25(3) as negativing any presumption that removal is an inevitable consequence of failing to comply with an O-3 notice. Following Charanjiv Kumar, delay did not bar relief, that Division Bench having permitted renewal after sixteen years where no valid notice had issued.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.