Madras High Court
The Sub-Registrar vs K.Arumugasamy on 7 August, 2023
2023/MHC/3799
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRVARTHY
W.A(MD)NO.1261 OF 2023
and
C.M.P(MD)No.9462 of 2023
The Sub-Registrar,
Sub-Registrar’s Office,
Vadipatti,
Madurai District. :Appellant/Respondent
.vs.
K.Arumugasamy : Respondent/Writ Petitioner
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in
W.P(MD)No.27688 of 2022, dated 23.12.2022.
For Appellant :Mr.Veerakathiravan,
Addl.Advocate General,
assisted by
Mr.J.K.Jeyaseelan
Govt.Advocate
For Respondent :Mr.S.Babu
JUDGMENT
*********
[Judgment of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR,J.]
This Writ Appeal is filed by the Sub-Registrar, Vadipatti,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Madurai District challenging the order passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P(MD)No.27688 of 2022, dated 23.12.2022.
2.Mr.S.Babu, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the
sole respondent/Caveator. By consent of both parties, the Writ
Appeal is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
3.Challenging the notice, dated 24.11.2022, by which, the
Petitioner was called upon to pay the deficit stamp duty to the tune
of Rs.32,64,616/-, the Writ Petition is filed.The respondent
purchased the property through Court monitored auction sale on
21.02.2022 and the Writ Petitioner’s bid for a sum of Rs.
7,21,00,000/- was found to be the highest bid and sale certificate
was also issued in favour of the Writ Petitioner in respect of the
property in question. However, the appellant treating the transaction
as one under-valued and issued a notice directing the Petitioner to
pay a sum of Rs.32,64,616/- towards the deficit stamp duty and
registration charges on the ground that the value of the building as
per inspection report is Rs.5,26,76,484/-.
4.The Writ Petition is allowed by the learned Single Judge
following the judgment in 2022 SCC Online 1554(Registrar of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Assurances and another .vs. ASL Vyapar Private Limited and
another (2022 SCC Online 1554) and held that the auction sale
was monitored by the National Company Law Tribunal Division
Bench-I, Chennai cannot be subjected to proceedings for under
valuation. It is pointed out by the Honourable Supreme Court in the
above case that the registering authority cannot doubt the value
fixed for Court auction sale pursuant to the Court monitored
process. Having regard to the scope of Section 47-A of the Act
where the Registering Officer may refer the document only when
he has reason to believe under valuation, the Honourable Supreme
Court held that the independent determination of market value by a
Registering Officer is not required to a Court auction sale and the
sale transaction cannot be subject to reference under Section 47-A
of the Act. This Court, having regard to the object behind Section
47-A is unable to see a power or discretion vested in the
Registering Authority to re-assess the market value for the property
sold in Court auction. Evena s per Sub Section 1 of Section 47A as
applicable to the State of Tamil Nadu, only when the market value
has not been truly setforth in the instrument, the Registering
Officer, may refer the instrument for determination of market value.
Hence the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court squarely applies
in this case. This Court is bound by the judgment of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Honourable Supreme Court as cited supra.
5.Further, in the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in
the case of V.N.Devadoss .vs.The Chief Revenue Control
Officer cum Inspector and others reported in (2009) 7
Supreme Court Cases 438 has held as follows:
‘’14.In the instant case, the factual scenario
shows that the vendors of the appellant ie.,
M/s.Dunlop India Limited became a sick industry and
was declared so under the provisions of the 1985 Act.
Consequent upon such declaration, surplus properties
and assets belonging to the said Company were
disposed of on the basis of orders passed by BIFR and
AAIFR by forming an Assets Sales Committee.The
appellant submitted that his tender along with others
and his offer of Rs.24.34 crores approximately was
the highest , and the same was accepted by the
Assets Sales Committee and also by the statutory
authorities.The Company was granted permission to
execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant.
15.The stand of the State is that wheat has been
disclosed is clearly a sale value and the same cannot
be termied as market value. There is fallacy in this
argument.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16.Market value is a changing concept. The
explanation to sub-rule(5) makes the posistiuon clear
that (sic.market) value would be such as would have
fetched or would fetch if sold in the open market on
the date of execution of the instrument of
conveyance. Hence, the property was offered for sale
in the open market and bids were invited.That being
so, there is no question of any intention to defraud the
revenue or non disclosure of the correctprive. The
factual scenario as indicated aboe goes to show that
the properties were disposed of by the orders of
BIFR and AAIFR and that too on the basis of value
fixed by Assets Sales Committee. The view was
expressed by the Assets Sales Committee which
consisted of members such as representatives of
IDBI, debenture-holders, Government of West Bengal
and Special Director of BIFR. That being so, there is
no possibility of any undervaluation and therefore,
Section 47-A of the Act has no application. It is not
correct as observed by the High Court that BIFR was
only a mediator.’’
6.Further in paragraph 18 of the above judgment, it is held
that ‘’on the facts of the case, it cannot be said that Section 47-A
has any application because there is no scope for entertaining a
doubt that there was any under-valuation’’. Hence, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No
costs.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[S.S.S.R.,J.] [D.B.C.,J.]
07.08.2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
NCC:Yes/No
vsn
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)NO.1261 OF 2023
and
C.M.P(MD)No.9462 of 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
07.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
