Bombay High Court
Trident Estate Private Limited And Anr vs The Officer Of Joint District Registrar ... on 23 October, 2024
Author: B. P. Colabawalla
Bench: B. P. Colabawalla
2024:BHC-AS:42270
13.wp.3651.2024(1).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3651 OF 2024
1] Trident Estate Private Limited
2] Ms.Sanjana Goenka .. Petitioners
Versus
1] The Office of Joint District
Registrar-Class-1, Collector of stamps
Pune-Rural.
2] State of Maharashtra,
through Revenue Department
3] The Sub Registrar, Lonavala .. Respondents
UTKARSH
Mr. Rohaan Cama a/w Hasan Mushabber, Shreya Bhagnari
KAKASAHEB i/b Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah, Advocates for the
BHALERAO
Digitally signed by
Petitioners.
UTKARSH KAKASAHEB
BHALERAO
Date: 2024.10.23
17:26:31 +0530
Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl. G.P. a/w S. S. Bhende, AGP Advocates
for State/Respondents.
CORAM :B. P. COLABAWALLA &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
RESERVED ON: SEPTEMBER 26, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON: OCTOBER 23, 2024
JUDGMENT:
[ Per B. P. COLABAWALLA,J. ]
OCTOBER 23, 2024
Utkarsh
13.wp.3651.2024(1).doc
1. The above Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash and set
aside the impugned demand notice dated 7 th February 2024 issued by
the Office of Respondent No.1. By the impugned demand notice, the
Petitioner is called upon to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.83,60,550/-
and a penalty of Rs.23,41,000/-. This stamp duty and penalty is levied
on the basis that the value of the property purchased by Petitioner No.1
under an auction conducted by Sale-cum-Monitoring Committee
constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is Rs.16,72,11,000/- [as per
the valuation of the Stamp Authorities]. According to the Petitioners,
the principles on which the market value of the property is determined
itself is bad because the sale was conducted by the Sale-cum-Monitoring
Committee constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore the
true market value of the property has to be the value at which the
property was sold to Petitioner No.1. The property in question is land
together with the building thereon comprising of plots collectively
admeasuring about 2160 sq.mtrs. bearing Gat No.107, 108 and 109
having plinth/Plot No.229 in Ambey Valley City, Pune, Maharashtra
[for short the "said property"]. This, in effect, is the controversy in
the present Petition.
OCTOBER 23, 2024
Utkarsh
13.wp.3651.2024(1).doc
2. Before we delve into the rival contentions it would only be
appropriate to set out very brief facts. By an order dated 10 th May 2018
passed in Civil Appeal No.20971 of 2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
inter alia (i) constituted a Sale-cum-Monitoring Committee to deal with
and conduct the sale of the assets of one Citrus Check Inn Ltd.
("CCIL"), and Royal Twinkle Star Club Limited ("RTSCL"), and all
their associate/sister concerns; (ii) directed the Sale-cum-Monitoring
Committee to appoint registered valuers to value the properties
unearthed during insolvency process of CCIL and RTCL and all their
associate/sister concerns; (iii) directed that the Sale-cum-Monitoring
Committee would comprise of the Resolution Professional, one SEBI
Representative, one Investor Representative and one Representative of
CCIL and RTSCL and their associate/sister concerns; and (iv) directed
that all properties of CCIL, RTSCL as well as assets and other properties
of their associate/sister concerns were to be attached. Pursuant to this
attachment, it was directed that after the valuation of each of the
properties was done, the sale of each of these properties would take
place under aegis of the Hon'ble NCLT. There were also subsequent
orders passed wherein it was inter alia clarified that in selling properties
under the aegis of the Supreme Court, the Sale-cum-Monitoring
OCTOBER 23, 2024
Utkarsh
13.wp.3651.2024(1).doc
Committee was to follow the procedure laid down by the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016.
3. Pursuant to these directions, the Sale-cum-Monitoring
Committee, from time to time, issued tenders and sold some of the
properties belonging to CCIL and RTSCL and all its associate/sister
concerns. One such tender was issued by the Sale-cum-Monitoring
Committee on 8th March 2022 for e-auction of various properties of
CCIL, RTSCL and its associate and/or sister concerns. The said e-
auction was to take place on 6 th April 2022 and one of the properties in
this e-auction was the said property. Petitioner No.1 participated in the
said e-auction and tendered its bid for the said property [listed at serial
No.45 of the tender document] for a lump sum consideration of
Rs.2,51,00,000/-. For the said property, Petitioner No.1 emerged as the
highest bidder in the said e-auction. Accordingly, the Sale-cum-
Monitoring Committee, under Regulation 33 of the 2016 Regulations,
read with Rule 63(1) of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act,
1961, issued a Sale Certificate dated 9 th June 2022 in favour of Petitioner
No.1 and which was duly signed and accepted by it.
OCTOBER 23, 2024
Utkarsh
13.wp.3651.2024(1).doc
4. After the Sale Certificate was issued, the Petitioners
approached Respondent No.3 for registration of the said Sale Certificate
under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. At this time,
Respondent No.3 orally declined to register the Sale Certificate in
absence of adjudication and payment of stamp duty on the said Sale
Certificate. This was despite the fact that Petitioner No.1 expressed its
willingness to pay 5% stamp duty on the amount reflected in the Sale
Certificate which was issued by the Sale-cum-Monitoring Committee
appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. In these circumstances, Petitioner No.1 was constrained to
make an Application to the Office of the Joint District Registrar &
Collector of Stamps (Rural), Pune, Maharashtra on 28 th July 2022 for
adjudication of the stamp duty. Since the Petitioners received no
response, they addressed two more communications to the concerned
authorities on 17th November 2022 and 10th July 2023. After repeated
follow ups for about 18 months, Petitioner No.1 ultimately received the
impugned demand notice dated 7th February 2024, inter alia,
demanding stamp duty @ 5% on the alleged market value of the said
property, which according to the Stamp Authorities, was
Rs.16,72,11,000/-. In other words, the stamp duty demanded was
OCTOBER 23, 2024
Utkarsh
13.wp.3651.2024(1).doc
Rs.83,60,550/- and a penalty was also imposed in the sum of
Rs.23,41,000/-. It is being aggrieved by this impugned demand notice
that the present Petition is filed.
6. We must mention here that the above Writ Petition was
urgently moved before us on an earlier occasion, namely, on 7 th August
2024. On that date it was pointed out to us that the period for
registering the Sale Certificate would expire on 17 th August 2024, after
which there is no provision in the Registration Act, 1908 for registering
the said Sale Certificate. Since there was urgency in the matter, we, on
7th August 2024, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the
parties, directed that the Petitioner shall pay the stamp duty as per the
value/consideration mentioned in the Sale Certificate. Once that stamp
duty was paid, we had also directed that the Sale Certificate be
registered by the concerned authority. We had also recorded an
undertaking on behalf of the Petitioner that in the event the Petitioner
fails in the above Petition, the balance amount of stamp duty with
penalty, if any, shall also be paid by the Petitioners, subject to any right
of appeal that the Petitioners may have in that regard. Pursuant to these
directions, on the basis of sale price mentioned in the Sale Certificate,
the stamp duty was paid by the Petitioners and the Sale Certificate
OCTOBER 23, 2024
Utkarsh
13.wp.3651.2024(1).doc
issued by the Sale-cum-Monitoring Committee in relation to the said
property, has been duly registered. For completeness we may also
mention that on 29th August 2024 we had directed that the valuation
done for the said property [by the Sale-cum-Monitoring Committee] be
also placed on the record of this Court. We passed these directions
because we were of the opinion that the valuation would also throw light
on whether the said property is purchased for a price which is
commensurate, at least with the valuation done by the Valuers
appointed by the said Sale-cum-Monitoring Committee. Today, Mr.
Cama, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, has
tendered an additional affidavit bringing the valuation of the Sale-cum-
Monitoring Committee on the record of this Court.
7. In this factual backdrop, Mr. Cama submitted that Chapter
III of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 deals with adjudication of
stamps. Section 31, the first Section in that Chapter, relates to
adjudication of proper stamps. For our limited purposes, he submitted
that it is sufficient to note that sub-section (1) requires the Collector to
determine the duty with which the instrument presented to him is
chargeable. Sub-section (2) speaks of material and evidence that may be
required to be given to the Collector to enable him to arrive at his
OCTOBER 23, 2024
Utkarsh
13.wp.3651.2024(1).doc
determination. It also stipulates that the Collector may refuse to process
any such application unless that material has been given to him. Then
sub-section (3) speaks of a situation where the Collector has reason to
believe that the market value of the property that is the subject matter of
the instrument has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he must
determine 'the true market value of such property' as laid down in the
Bombay [now Maharashtra] Stamp (Determination of True Market
Value of the Property) Rules, 1995 (for short the "1995 Rules"). This
would indicate that the Collector is not bound to accept as correct any
value or consideration stated in the instrument itself. Should he have
reason to believe that it is incorrect, he is to determine the true market
value. He is to be guided by the 1995 Rules in doing so, was the
submission. Mr. Cama thereafter pointed out that these 1995 Rules
provide for various circumstances. Rule 3 requires certain particulars to
be stated in the instrument as prescribed in Section 28 of the Stamp Act.
Rule 4 deals with Annual Statements of Rates (also colloquially referred
to as the Ready Reckoner) of the immovable property. He submitted
that in the present case we are not concerned with sub-rules (1) to (5) of
Rule 4, but we are concerned with the interpretation of sub-rule (6) and
its various provisos.
OCTOBER 23, 2024
Utkarsh
13.wp.3651.2024(1).doc
8. Relying upon Rule 4(6), and more particularly the first
proviso thereto, it was the submission of Mr. Cama that sale conducted
under the aegis of the Court are done on the basis of a valuation
obtained by it and by following a completely open and transparent
process. He submitted that the process that the Court follows is perhaps
far more rigorous than the first proviso to sub-rule (6) of Rule 4
contemplates. He submitted that an auction of a property conducted by
a Court is possibly one of the most transparent methods by which the
property can be sold. Thus, to say that even in a Court monitored
auction, the stamp authorities would have a say on what is the market
price, would amount to those authorities sitting in appeal over the
decision of the Court permitting sale at a particular price. He submitted
that it is not as if a public auction is carried out without any application
of mind. The necessary pre-requisites require fixation of minimum price
and other aspects to be taken care of so that the bidding process is
transparent. Even after the bidding process is completed, the Court has
a right to cancel the bid and such bids are subject to confirmation by the
Court. Once the Court is satisfied that the bid price is the appropriate
price [on the basis of the material before it] and gives its imprimatur to
it, any interference by the Stamping Authorities on the aspect of price
would be wholly unjustified.
OCTOBER 23, 2024
Utkarsh
13.wp.3651.2024(1).doc
9. He submitted that in the facts of the present case, a
valuation was done [of the said property] which showed the fair market
value as Rs.4,32,00,000/- and the liquidation value as Rs.3,45,60,000/.
Despite this valuation, the property could not be sold as there were no
takers. Ultimately, the Sale-cum-Monitoring Committee received an
offer of Rs.2,50,00,000/- from a prospective buyer and the said offer
was placed before the 26th Committee Meeting of the said Sale-cum-
Monitoring Committee held on 20th February 2022. At this meeting the
Committee decided that the said property would be sold by public
auction by keeping the reserve price of Rs.2,50,00,000/-. It is pursuant
to this that an e-auction notice was issued on 8 th March 2022 wherein
the said property was listed at serial No.45 and the reserve price was
fixed at Rs.2,50,00,000/- It is in this e-auction, and which was
conducted on 6th April 2022 that Petitioner No.1 was the successful
bidder who purchased the said property for Rs.2,51,00,000/-. Once this
is the case, the Stamp Authorities could not embark upon a journey to
determine the true market value themselves and come to the conclusion
that the property was valued at Rs.16,72,00,000/-, and levy stamp duty
on that basis. In support of his submissions Mr. Cama relied upon a
Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Spectrum
OCTOBER 23, 2024
Utkarsh
13.wp.3651.2024(1).doc
Constructions and Developers LLP V/S State of
Maharashtra, through Joint District Registrar [2022 SCC
Online Bom 3693] as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Registrar of Assurances & Another V/S ASL
Vyapar Pvt Ltd & Another [2022 SCC Online SC 1554]. For all
the aforesaid reasons, Mr. Cama submitted that the impugned demand
notice dated 7th February 2024 is unsustainable and ought to be
quashed and set aside.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Patel, the learned AGP appearing
on behalf of the Respondents, submitted that by the present Petition
what the Petitioner challenges is the demand notice dated 7 th February
2024. This demand notice is issued by Respondent No.1 in exercise of
powers conferred under Section 33 read with Section 32A of the
Maharashtra Stamp Act. As per the guidelines issued by the Inspector
General of Registration, Maharashtra State, Pune, it is clarified that only
if the owner of the property is the government, or semi government
undertakings and/or a local authority, and it is these authorities that are
selling the property, then first proviso to Rule 4(6) would apply. If a
private property sold in an auction even by the DRT or such other
institutions, then the first proviso to Rule 4(6) would have no
OCTOBER 23, 2024
Utkarsh
13.wp.3651.2024(1).doc
application. He submitted that this logic would also be applicable to the
any sale conducted by Sale-cum-Monitoring Committee setup by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. He, therefore, submitted that there was
absolutely nothing incorrect on the part of the 1 st Respondent in
independently determining the true market value of the said property
and thereafter levy stamp duty thereon. Consequently, Mr. Patel
submitted that there was no merit in the above Petition and the same
ought to be dismissed.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some
length. We have also perused the papers and proceedings in the above
Writ Petition. As mentioned earlier, the controversy in the present
Petition lies within a very narrow compass. The only question to be
decided is whether in a case where a sale is conducted by a Court or
under the aegis of Court (like in the present case), the stamp authorities
can embark upon a journey to determine the true market value of the
property [sold in an auction conducted by the Court or under the aegis
of the Court] and levy stamp duty thereon. We find that the issue raised
in the present Petition is squarely covered by a decision of a Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Spectrum Constructions and
Developers LLP (supra) as well as a decision of the Hon'ble
OCTOBER 23, 2024
Utkarsh
13.wp.3651.2024(1).doc
Supreme Court in the case of ASL Vyapar Pvt Ltd (supra). In the
case of Spectrum Constructions also the Petitioner was a successful
bidder for purchase of certain immovable property for an amount of
Rs.1,66,57,920/-. This property was purchased by Spectrum
Constructions pursuant to a sale conducted by a Committee constituted
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under the Chairmanship of the Hon'ble
Mr. Justice R. M. Lodha (former Chief Justice of India), to oversee the
disposal of lands held by a company called PACL Ltd. The reserve price
fixed for the property was Rs.83,28,960/- and the bid of the Petitioner
was higher than that. The Petitioner also paid full stamp duty on the
consideration paid for purchasing the property in question. Thereafter,
the Petitioner (i.e. Spectrum Constructions) received a demand notice
from the Stamp Authorities for payment of deficit stamp duty and
penalty. This was challenged before this Court by Spectrum
Constructions. It is in these facts that a Division Bench of this Court
held as under:-
"(6) We are in agreement with Mr. Vashi, learned Senior
Counsel for the Petitioners, that in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there is no question of the
stamp authorities independently reassessing the market
value of the land and building. The issue at law is covered
by the decision in Pinak Bharat and Co v. Anil Ramrao
Naik delivered by one of us sitting singly (GS Patel, J).
This points out that where the land is sold or allotted by the
government or a semi-government body, government
OCTOBER 23, 2024
Utkarsh
13.wp.3651.2024(1).doc
undertaking or a local authority on the basis of
predetermined price, then the value as determined by such
body is to be taken as the true market value of the subject
matter property.
(7) There is no doubt in this case that the market value was
the bid of the Petitioner as accepted by the Justice Lodha
Committee and that the sale was confirmed at the amount
of the Petitioner's bid by SEBI. In this view of the matter,
there is no question of the stamp authorities determining
any other value. The only value to be accepted is
Rs.1,66,57,920/-. The stamp duty on this is Rs.9,99,475/-.
There is no question therefore of allowing the stamp
authorities to demand any other amount. There is certainly
no question of a penalty.
(8) Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer
clauses (a) and (b) which read as under:
"a. That a writ of mandamus or any other writ,
order or direction be issued ordering and
directing the Respondent to accept
Rs.9,99,475/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Ninety Nine
Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Five
Only) as stamp duty on the basis of the auction
value i.e. Rs.1,66,57,920/- as a market value of
the said land and complete all the registration
of Certificate of Sale formalities and execute
the transfer of plots in favour of the Petitioner.
b. That a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order
or direction be issued calling for the records
and files of the case and after going into the
legality and validity of the impugned
order/demand notice dated 7th October, 2021
(Exhibit I) quash and set aside the same."
(9) The Stamp duty calculated as per prayer clause (a) will be
paid by the Petitioner within two weeks from today. We
accept the statement to this effect by Mr.Vashi made on
instructions as an undertaking made to the Court."
OCTOBER 23, 2024
Utkarsh
13.wp.3651.2024(1).doc
12. As laid down by the Division Bench in Spectrum
Constructions, once the bid of the Petitioner was accepted by the Justice
Lodha Committee, and the sale was confirmed at a price bid by the
Petitioner, and which was above the reserve price, there was no question
of the Stamp Authorities determining any other value. That would be
taken as the market value.
13. This does not stop here. This issue has now been
conclusively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ASL
Vyapar Pvt Ltd (supra). A three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has clearly opined that in a Court auction, often the
price obtainable may be slightly less as any bidder has to take care of a
scenario where the auction may be challenged which could result in
passage of time in obtaining perfection of title, with also the possibility
of it being overturned. But that is the price obtainable as a result of the
process by which the property is disposed of and the Stamp Authorities
cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Court permitting sale at a
particular price. The logic is that an auction of a property by the Court is
possibly one of the most transparent methods by which the property can
be sold. Thus, to say that even in a Court monitored auction, the
OCTOBER 23, 2024
Utkarsh
13.wp.3651.2024(1).doc
Registering Authority would have a say on what is the market price,
would amount to the Registering Authority sitting in appeal over the
decision of the Court permitting sale at a particular price. Though we
are conscious of the fact that in the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court was considering the provisions of Section 47A of the Indian
Stamp (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1990, but the ratio laid down
therein would, on all fours, also apply here. The relevant portion of the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ASL Vyapar Pvt
Ltd (supra) reads thus:-
"24. On the conspectus of the matter, we have not the
slightest hesitation in upholding the view that the provision of
Section 47A of the Act cannot be said to have any application
to a public auction carried out through court process/receiver
as that is the most transparent manner of obtaining the correct
market value of the property.
25. It is no doubt true that in a court auction, the price
obtainable may be slightly less as any bidder has to take care
of a scenario where the auction may be challenged which
could result in passage of time in obtaining perfection of title,
with also the possibility of it being overturned. But then that is
a price obtainable as a result of the process by which the
property has to be disposed of. We cannot lose sight of the
very objective of the introduction of the Section whether under
the West Bengal Amendment Act or in any other State, i.e.,
that in case of under valuation of property, an aspect not
uncommon in our country, where consideration may be
passing through two modes - one the declared price and the
other undeclared component, the State should not be deprived
of the revenue. Such transactions do not reflect the correct
price in the document as something more has been paid
through a different method. The objective is to take care of
such a scenario so that the State revenue is not affected and
the price actually obtainable in a free market should be
OCTOBER 23, 2024
Utkarsh
13.wp.3651.2024(1).doc
capable of being stamped. If one may say, it is, in fact, a
reflection on the manner in which the transfer of an immovable
property takes place as the price obtainable in a transparent
manner would be different. An auction of a property is possibly
one of the most transparent methods by which the property
can be sold. Thus, to say that even in a court monitored
auction, the Registering Authority would have a say on what is
the market price, would amount to the Registering Authority
sitting in appeal over the decision of the Court permitting sale
at a particular price.
26. It is not as if a public auction is carried out just like that.
The necessary pre-requisites require fixation of a minimum
price and other aspects to be taken care of so that the bidding
process is transparent. Even after the bidding process is
completed the court has a right to cancel the bid and such bids
are subject to confirmation by the court. Once the court is
satisfied that the bid price is the appropriate price on the basis
of the material before it and gives its imprimatur to it, any
interference by the Registering Authority on the aspect of price
of transaction would be wholly unjustified.
27. We may only note that this Court in P. Laxmi Devi [(2008)
4 SCC 720] case has opined the purpose behind bringing into
force Section 47A in the Andhra Pradesh State, i.e., in case of
large scale under-valuation of the real value of property in the
sale deed, the Government is defrauded of a proper revenue.
It was to take care of the absence of any provision in the
original Stamp Act empowering revenue authority to make an
inquiry about the value of the conveyed property, that the
Amendment was brought forth so that the revenue did not
suffer. The judgment in V.N. Devadoss [(2009) 7 SCC 438]
case albeit in respect of Amendment in Tamil Nadu, opined
that it was not a routine procedure to be followed in respect of
each and every document of conveyance presented for
registration without any evidence to show a lack of bona
fides of the parties. There has to be a willful under-valuation of
the subject of transfer with fraudulent intention to evade
payment of proper stamp duty.
28. We do not accept the contention that the mere wordings of
these different provisions in any way take away the
fundamental intent with which the provision was brought into
force and specifies so in the same manner though albeit in a
different language. In a court auction following its own
OCTOBER 23, 2024
Utkarsh
13.wp.3651.2024(1).doc
procedure, the Registering Officer cannot have any reason
to believe that the market value of the property was not duly
set forth - a pre-requisite for a Registering Authority to
exercise its power under the said Section.
29. If we see in the factual context of the two scenarios before
us in respect of the two cases, the telling aspect in a partition
case was the existence of 98 tenants on a land at a monthly
rent of Rs. 8,000 for the entire land and 80 vendors occupying
the land for hawking business during day time. It is trite to say
that the mere existence of tenancy results in a considerable
decline in the market value of the property as they may have
their statutory rights and even otherwise, the purchaser would
be acquiring the property hardly in an ideal scenario and
would be left with the burden to take legal processes for the
eviction. In such a scenario, there is actually a great
depression in the market value of the property as even if a fair
transaction without an auction takes place with full reflection of
price, the transacted value would be half or less of a vacant
property. The tenancy aspect can hardly be said to be an
aspect which could be ignored in the determination of the
price.
30. In the company matter, repeated auctions were held and it
is in the negotiated bid that the higher price was obtained. It
was court monitored. There would be no occasion for the court
to accept the bid if it was not satisfied with the process and the
valuation. A correct value of a property is the one where there
is a purchaser and a seller ad idem on the price (the actual
price). The market value is, thus, the value which the highest
bidder is willing to pay in the facts and prevailing
circumstances and not a notional price.
31. We find hardly any rational in adopting the submissions on
behalf of the appellant. The provisions are not dissimilar in the
different enactments in its fundamentals; the "reason to
believe" of a Registering Officer has to be based on ground
realities and not some whimsical determination; the
Registering Authority cannot be permitted to doubt the
liquidation proceedings as having some superior knowledge
when it is a court monitored process where the court would
take care of aspects such as cartelization; the Registering
Authority can hardly be said to be the only authority with
knowledge of the subject to the exclusion of the court; the
independent determination by a Registering Officer would not
OCTOBER 23, 2024
Utkarsh
13.wp.3651.2024(1).doc
apply to a court sale but to a private transaction; the Stamp
Act being a fiscal statute, while being interpreted strictly and
literally would not imply some kind of absolute power.
32. The decision of this Court in V.N. Devadoss [(2009) 7 SCC
438] case can hardly be said to be per incuriam. No doubt a
court monitored auction is a forced sale, but then it has a
competitive element of a public auction to realize the best
possible price. In many court cases, this is the process
followed by the court to get the best obtainable price taking
due precaution.
33. We are, thus, of the view that this reference is required to
be answered by opining that in case of a public auction
monitored by the court, the discretion would not be available to
the Registering Authority under Section 47A of the Act."
(emphasis supplied)
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the above Writ Petition
is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads thus:-
"(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of Certiorari, or
a writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India, calling for the entire records and proceeding of the case
as pertaining to the impugned demand notice dated 7 th
February 2024, issued by Respondent No.1 and after going into
the legality validity and propriety of the impugned demand
notice dated 7th February 2024, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to
quash and set aside the same."
15. As far as prayer clause (c) is concerned, the same does not
survive in light of our order dated 7th August 2024 and which has been
duly complied with.
OCTOBER 23, 2024
Utkarsh
13.wp.3651.2024(1).doc
16. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
17. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/
Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by
fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]
OCTOBER 23, 2024
Utkarsh
