Judgment · High Court · 2004
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Shri K. N. NqndiB, COunsel (orthepetitioner. Shri Bhaslw Pyasi, Panet Ljawy< /er for 'tlTdi State. Heard both the counsel. The petitioner hus prefc^ 226/227 of 1+ie Constitution 'fwsdi •thia writ petition under ArMcle -the legality. India questioning propriety and correctness of 1+^ •by the Collectpr whereby the hleordepdated 31st Jufy 2000 pessed ^etitioner's certificate to practice as public notary has be»irenewed For a period of Ihree yecrs ins1%ad of ./'/• -^:^ ',^-n fiveyedrs. Brief focts leacling *o " petitioner is practicing as NotaF^ -the certificate his tenure of •therefore. the petitioner movec^; authority for renewd of •the su^ July 2000 his certificateiuas per the old law and provisfons ^f Notaries Act, 1952. Whereas,| the Act 36 of 1999 / whereby to five^arsw^.f. 17-12-1999. this petition are that filinig of at Sarcnggorh, &istrict: ftajgarh. As •ttie |t-o practice as nofary wsa expiring, ^an application before the competent 1 <»rtifkarteand vide order dcrted 3^ n^wuied for a period of +hree 'years ^f sub-sectwn (2) of Section 5 of fthe 1 -the said provision stood amendedi by •fffet period of three years was amended -i- XI-HC—78 '3S|''^(TZIRT2T, ®Tfl'«<l<o,fqdiy^< ^•^••-•••••^^^te 200 an^fi tl^i' Ciciij«<<i.<T) 311^1 Wl<;'fi<*; WT 3:TT^T sf^ict) ;}?CTiwofei3n^r *—^. s I; hw^ peruaecl sub-secrt 1 Act. 1952 which peads •ttius:- ctir<fitCT<flt tTWff "ff fs%t ^f^f^[t ^ aifipTail^t n (2)<»f Section 8 of 'tticNotaries "The goveniment recejpt of an appli^ation renew the certifical a period 6f five yeap|s in view of <and •rtie a()|»oihting •thtf notary may, on proscribed fee, t^ of pnactice of any notary for '•Isatdtime. " Therefore, above provisions the petittoners certifjcate to proctice as Notar^ ougKt 1w have been renewed for a period of fjye years. In fhe cipoumstances, thtj petitioner's petition dese»^es to be allowed. Accordingly.ltie petiTftjn js allowed and the re^»ondentsare cfirectecl to renew the petiti<»ner|s for a period of fiw years insted^ certificate for pructicing as Notary of •ttiree yeoirs wilh effect from Ihe original dortB front which he wcis entitled for renewal of eertifica*e. Parties are entitted for cdttified copy of thfe order. , Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge' ^^ I; y.' Barve ^sM',vv :!/t
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Notaries Act, 1952.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Chhattisgarh High Court, on 17 Dec 2004.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.