Madras High Court
Catholic Syrian Bank vs The Inspector General Of ... on 28 October, 2021
WP.No.5226 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
WP.No.5226 of 2017
and WMP.Nos.5552 & 5553 of 2017
Catholic Syrian Bank,
T.Nagar Branch,
No.33, Dr.C.N.Deivanayagam Complex,
Venkatanarayana Road,
T.Nagar,
Chennai 600 017
Rep. by its Chief Manager ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai 600 028
2.The District Registrar,
O/o. The District Registrar,
South Madras,
Chennai-15
3.The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office Neelankarai,
1/17, 1st Floor, Kajera Garden 2nd Street,
East Coast Road,
Neelankarai,
Chennai 600 115 ... Respondents
1/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.No.5226 of 2017
Prayer :- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
relating to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.016355/E1/2016 dated
26.11.2016 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and
consequently direct the third respondent to release the documents registered
as document Nos.6020 & 6021 of 2016 with necessary notation.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Rajasekaran
For Respondents : Mr.Richardson Wilson,
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order in
Na.Ka.No.016355/E1/2016 dated 26.11.2016 issued by the second
respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent
to release the documents registered as document Nos.6020 & 6021 of 2016
with necessary notation.
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.No.5226 of 2017
2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner Bank is a
Scheduled Bank and is entitled to carry out all businesses which a Banking
Company may engage in as referred to in Section 6 sub-clause (1) of the
Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and holds a valid licence duly issued by the
Reserve Bank of India. In view of the default committed by the borrower,
the petitioner had filed an application in OA.No.710 of 2000 re-numbered
as OA.No.1843 of 2001 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai and
the same was allowed and directed for issuance of recovery certificate for a
sum of Rs.1,09,19,871.71/-. Thereafter as per the provision, the property
was brought for auction. The petitioner has purchased the same from Debt
Recovery Officer through E-auction conducted by the Debt Recovery
Officer on 16.03.2016. The petitioner was declared successful bidder and
auction was confirmed by the Debt Recovery Officer. In pursuant to the
auction sale, the petitioner was issued sale certificate No.9 of 2016 dated
21.04.2016. The petitioner had presented the original sale certificate before
the third respondent for registration. The petitioner had paid stamp duty
based on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale certificate. However,
the third respondent after inspecting the properties, clarified that the
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.No.5226 of 2017
petitioner Bank has to pay stamp duty based on the guideline value. The
third respondent also said that after collection of deficit stamp duty, the
registered document would be released to the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner is liable to pay stamp duty only on the sale value of the sale
certificate dated 21.04.2016 and not on the guideline value of the property.
The auction conducted by the Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery
Tribunal pursuant to Section 29 of the Debt Recovery Act, which provides
for procedures as contemplated in schedule II and III of the Income Tax Act,
1961 and its procedures in the matter of attachment and sale of immovable
properties. It shows that under Order XXI Rule 92 of CPC, the sale become
absolute at the moment of sale is confirmed by the Court. Similarly, the sale
made by the Recovery Officer under the Income Tax Act becomes absolute
when the sale is confirmed under the clause 63 of schedule II of the Income
Tax Act. Therefore, there is no difference between the court sale and Debt
Recovery Tribunal sale. The sale certificate is only a document evidencing
the conveyance which had already taken place issued under Order XXI Rule
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.No.5226 of 2017
94 of CPC by civil court. Therefore, Section 47(A) of the Stamp Act has no
application in the case on hand. When the petitioner approached the third
respondent to release the document, the impugned order in this writ petition
dated 26.11.2016 was served, thereby the second respondent directed the
third respondent that as per circular issued by the first respondent dated
27.01.2014, the value for the property comprised in survey No.736/P
situated at Sholinganallur Village to be fixed at Rs.3,000/- per sq.ft.
Accordingly, the third respondent refused to release the document which
was presented for registration and insisted to pay deficit stamp duty without
initiation of proceedings under Section 47 (A) of the said Act. He further
submitted that the sale certificate issued by the Recovery Officer of the Debt
Recovery Tribunal does not attract the provision under Section 47(A) of the
Indian Stamp Act. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment
in the case of Dr.Meera Thinakaran Vs. The State of Tamilnadu rep. by
Secretary reported in (2012) 2 CTC 759, wherein this Court held that the
question of Recovery Officer appointed under the Recovery of Debts due to
Banks and Financial Institutions Act cannot be construed as a Revenue
Officer as contemplated under Article 18 of the Indian Stamps Act needs to
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.No.5226 of 2017
be considered and the Recovery Officer under Recovery of Debts due to
Banks and Financial Institutions Act will fall within the meaning of a
Revenue Officer as enumerated under Article 18 of the Indian Stamp Act.
Thus, the sale certificate issued by him squarely fall within the said
provision.
4. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of
Dr.R.Thiagarajan Vs. Inspector General of Registration and Others
reported in (2019) 4 CTC 839, wherein the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court
held that on a perusal of Article 18 of the Indian Stamp Act, it could be seen
that in the case of the sale made by and public auction by a Civil or Revenue
Court or Collector or other Revenue Officer, the stamp duty would be
payable on the consideration of the auction raised and not on the market
value of the property. If the sale is not made by a Civil or Revenue Court or
Collector or other Revenue Officer, the purchaser is liable to pay the stamp
duty on the market value of the property as per Article 23 of the Stamp Act.
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.No.5226 of 2017
5. Admittedly, the petitioner had purchased the subject property in
the auction. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued sale certificate No.10 of
2016 dated 21.04.2016. The said sale certificate was presented for
registration and the petitioner had paid stamp duty based on the sale
consideration mentioned in the sale certificate. Therefore, the impugned
instruction given by the second respondent insofar as fixing market value of
the property comprised in S.No.736/P at Rs.3,000/- per sq.ft. is not
applicable to this case document which was presented for registration i.e.
the sale certificate issued by the Recovery Officer.
6. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 26.11.2016 is
set aside insofar as the sale certificate presented by the petitioner for
registration with regards to part and parcel of 4 plots admeasuring 4992
sq.ft. each and the property admeasuring 89 cents comprised in survey
No.736 Part situated at Sholinganallur Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpet
District, and this writ petition is allowed. Therefore, the third respondent is
directed to, without insisting any insufficient stamp duty from the petitioner,
release the document of sale certificate registered vide document Nos.6020
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.No.5226 of 2017
of 2016 and 6021 of 2016 forthwith to the petitioner. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No order as to costs.
28.10.2021
lok
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.No.5226 of 2017
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP.No.5226 of 2017
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai 600 028
2.The District Registrar,
O/o. The District Registrar,
South Madras,
Chennai-15
3.The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office Neelankarai,
1/17, 1st Floor, Kajera Garden 2nd Street,
East Coast Road,
Neelankarai,
Chennai 600 115
WP.No.5226 of 2017
28.10.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
