Madras High Court
M/S.Shree Vijayalakshmi ... vs The Sub-Registrar on 28 July, 2021
W.A.No.1017 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
W.A.No.1017 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2/2012
M/s.Shree Vijayalakshmi Charitable Trust,
A Registered Trust rep. by its Trustee
Mr.A.Senthil Kumar,
No.107-A, Sen Gupta Street,
Ram Nagar, Coimbatore-641 009. ... Appellant
-vs-
The Sub-Registrar,
Mettupalayam,
Coimbatore District. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order of the learned Single Judge made in W.P.No.21913 of
2010 dated 28.03.2012.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy
For Respondent : Mr.T.Arun Kumar,
Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.A.No.1017 of 2012
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was pronounced by T.RAJA.J)
This Writ Appeal has been directed against the impugned order
dated 28.03.2012 passed in W.P.No.21913 of 2010 by a learned
Single Judge of this Court.
2. At the outset, it is relevant to mention that while
dismissing the Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge has held that in
view of the subsequent decisions of Our High Court reported in 2010
(2) CTC 113 (In Re., The Official Liquidator, High Court Madras)
and (2010) (4) CTC 802 (Cenney Hotels Private Limited,
through its Managing Director, Salem v.State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and
others) and also in the light of the decision rendered by a three
Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1969) (1)
Supreme Court Cases 497, in Raghunath and others vs. Kedar
Nath, the sale certificate issued by the Official Liquidator on behalf of
the company-in-Liquidation, in favour of the appellant herein, cannot
get exempted from payment of stamp duty at the time of registration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1017 of 2012
3. In this regard, learned Government Advocate appearing for
the respondent placed before us an unreported Full Bench Decision of
our High Court in the case of Dr.R.Thiagarajan vs. The Inspector
General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai-4 and two others
in W.P.(MD) No.3989/2017 dated 05.08.2019 wherein it has been
held that the sale certificate issued by the authorized officer of the
bank is liable for stamp duty under Article 18-C r/w. Article 23 of
Schedule 1 of the Indian Stamp Act and in the event of under
valuation of the property, the Registering Authority is entitled to
proceed in accordance with Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act.
4. Now coming to the case on hand, since the sale certificate
has been issued by the Official Liquidator of our High Court, the
appellant is liable to pay the stamp duty. In this regard, it is relevant
to extract paragraph 58 of the decision reported in 2010 (2) CTC 113
(In Re., The Official Liquidator, High Court Madras) here under:
''58. Similarly, the term ''Civil Officer'' is defined in
''Advanced Law Lexicon by P.Ramanatha Iyer'' as ''any
Officer holding appointment under the Government except
in the Military or Naval Service, whether the duties are
Executive or Judicial or in the highest or the lowest
departments''. The term ''Civil Officer'' has to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1017 of 2012
understood only in the context of ''civilians'' as opposed to
persons in Military service. It is doubtful, if an Official
Liquidator can be equated to a Civil Officer or a Revenue
Officer, so as to make the certificate of sale issued by him
come within the purview of Section 17(2) (xii) of the
Registration Act, 1908. I do not think that an Official
Liquidator can be considered to be a ''Revenue Officer''
within the meaning of Section 89 (4) since he is not
collecting revenue for the Government. Even assuming for
the sake of argument that he can be equated, Article 18
under Schedule-I of the Indian Stamp Act makes a
certificate of sale issued by a Revenue Officer also liable to
stamp duty. The term ''Revenue Officer'' appearing both in
Article 18 under Schedule-I of the Indian Stamp Act and
also in Sections 17(2)(xii) and 89(4) of the Registration
Act, are to be given the same meaning and to be construed
to indicate the same person.''
5. In view of the above, since the issue-in-question has
already been decided and squarely covered by the decision of the Full
Bench of Our High Court cited supra, we are of the considered view
that the sale certificate issued by the Official Liquidator on behalf of
the company-in-Liquidation, in favour of the appellant herein, cannot
get exempted from payment of stamp duty at the time of registration
as only a sale or transfer made by the revenue or civil court can be
exempted from payment of registration charges. Therefore, we find no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1017 of 2012
merit in the present Writ Appeal.
6. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(T.R.J.,) (V.S.G.J.,)
28.07.2021
tsi
To
The Sub-Registrar,
Mettupalayam,
Coimbatore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1017 of 2012
T.RAJA, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
tsi
W.A.No.1017/2012
28.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
