Madras High Court
M/S.Shri Ram Infra vs B/Kamesh on 26 April, 2023
Cont.P.No.515 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Cont.P.No.515 of 2023
M/s.Shri Ram Infra,
Represented by its Partner,
Mr.Rajasekar. R,
No.43/B, Gandhi Nagar, Marakkanam Road,
Tindivanam, Villupuram District,
Tamil Nadu-604 002. ... Petitioner
vs.
B/Kamesh
Sub Registrar,
SRO Marakkanam
Villupuram District,
Tamil Nadu-604 303. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971, pleased to punish the respondent for willful disobedience
of the order of this Court dated 19.12.2022 passed in Comp.A.No.249 of
2022 in C.P.No.57 of 1998.
For Petitioner : Mr.Rohan Rajasekaran
For Respondent : Mr.Edwin Prabakar,
Special Govt. Pleader, assisted by
Mr.R.Siddharth, Govt. Advocate
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.515 of 2023
ORDER
This contempt petition arises out of the alleged wilful disobedience of
the order dated 19.12.2022 in Comp.A.No.249 of 2022 in C.A.No.154 of
2022 in C.P.No.57 of 1998.
2. By the said order, the Sub Registrar, Joint II, Tindivanam,
Villupuram District and the Sub Registrar, Marakkanam, Villupuram
District, were directed to register the sale certificate in Book-1 as per
Section 89 of the Registration Act, 1908 (the Registration Act).
3. Learned counsel for the contempt petitioner submits that the Sub
Registrar, Tindivanam complied with the above order but the Sub Registrar,
Marakkanam, did not, in spite of issuance of a notice dated 13.01.2023.
4. Mr.Edwin Prabakar, learned Special Government Pleader, appears
for the alleged contemnor. He submits that Section 89(4) of the Registration
Act requires the registering officer to file a copy of a sale certificate issued
by a revenue officer in Book 1. By referring to several judgments, including
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.515 of 2023
the judgments in In Re Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras, 2010-2-
L.W.113, Dr.R.Thiagarajan v. Inspector General of Registration and others,
2019 SCC Online Mad 9085, Esjaypee Impex Private Ltd. v. AGM, (2021)
11 SCC 537, and The Sub Registrar, Neelangarai and Others v. Tripower
Enterprises, MANU/TN/6621/2022, he submits that the Official Liquidator
does not qualify as a revenue officer in terms of Section 89(4) of the
Registration Act. He also submits that the Registration Act and the Indian
Stamp Act 1899 (the Stamp Act) operate in related but distinct fields.
Consequently, he submits that the registering officer is entitled to impound
an insufficiently stamped instrument in terms of Section 33 and related
provisions of the Stamp Act. By pointing out that the State reserves its right
to canvass these propositions in appropriate proceedings, he states that the
sale certificate would be filed in Book 1.
5. The scope of contempt jurisdiction is limited to adjudicating
whether the relevant order was disobeyed and, if so, whether such
disobedience was wilful. Therefore, the adjudication of questions relating
to the applicability of stamp duty and the like are outside the scope of these
proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.515 of 2023
6. Learned Special Government Pleader has submitted that the sale
certificate would be filed in Book 1, in compliance with the order, subject
to the right of the State to canvass the above mentioned propositions in
appropriate proceedings. The filing of the sale certificate in Book 1 shall be
done within a maximum period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. By recording the said submissions, this contempt petition
is closed.
26.04.2023
kal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.515 of 2023
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J
kal
Cont.P.No.515 of 2023
26.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
