[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Casurina Bay Farms Private Limited vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 26 February, 2026
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
WP No. 47808 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-02-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
WP No. 47808 of 2025
Casurina Bay Farms Private Limited,
Represented by its Managing Director, No.4/231A,
MGR Salai, 6th Street, Palavakkam,
Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu-600 041.
..Petitioner
Vs
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
100, Santhome High Road, Mullima Nagar,
Mandavelipakkam, Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai, Tamilnadu-600 028.
2. The District Registrar,
The District Registrar Office, No.63/40,
Perumal Street, Tindivanam Ho,
Tindivanam-604001.
3. The Sub-Registrar,
Marakkanam Sub-Registration Office, No.1/1,
Sannadi Street, Marakkanam-604 303.
..Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus seeking suitable direction against the
Respondent No.3 to register and release the document bearing pending
Registration No. P/69/2025 on the file of the 3rd respondent and consequently
direct respondents 1 to 3 to refund the sum of Rs.41,59,300/- (Rupees Forty One
__________
Page1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:48:31 pm )
WP No. 47808 of 2025
Lakhs and Fifty Nine Thousand Three Hundred only) paid towards stamp duty
and Rs.20,79,650/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs and Seventy Nine thousand and Six
Hundred and Fifty Only) paid towards registration charges.
For Petitioner: Mr. M.S.Krishnan, Senior Advocate
for Mr. Anirudh Krishnan
For Respondents: Mr. P.S.Raman, Advocate General assisted by
Mr.U.Baranidharan, Spl. G.P.
ORDER
The petitioner participated in an e-auction held under the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and was the successful bidder. Therefore, sale
certificate dated 25.08.2025 was executed in favour of the petitioner. The
petitioner paid stamp duty at 7% of the sale consideration specified in the sale
certificate and registration charges at 2% thereon. The document was assigned
pending document no.P/69/2025. The payment of stamp duty and registration
fees at the rates mentioned above was under protest.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction for the registration
and release of the pending document and also seeks refund of sum of
Rs.41,59,300/- towards stamp duty and Rs.20,79,650/- towards registration
charges.
__________
Page2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:48:31 pm )
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that a reference
under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 does not lie in respect of
properties purchased in a public auction. In support of this contention, he relies
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in V.N.Devadoss v. Chief Revenue
Control Officer-cum-Inspector and others, (2009) 7 SCC 438 (V.N.Devadoss).
He also relies on the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in Registrar of
Assurances & another v. ASL Vyapar Private Limited and another, Civil
Appeal No.8282 of 2022, judgment dated 10.11.2022 (ASL Vyapar). He refers to
the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Dr.R.Thiagarajan v. Inspector
General of Registration and others, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 9085
(Dr.R.Thiagarajan) and contends that the said judgment did not take into
account the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in V.N.Devadoss. In light of
the consistent position taken in these judgments that Section 47A cannot be
invoked in cases wherein the market value is determined pursuant to an auction,
he submits that the petitioner is entitled to the registration and release of the
pending document.
4. As regards the request for refund, in view of the urgent requirement for
registration and release of the document, he submits that he may be granted
leave to seek such refund in a subsequent proceeding.
__________
Page3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:48:31 pm )
5. Learned Advocate General appears on behalf of the State. He invited
my attention to the orders passed in S.L.P.No.26950 of 2024, The Inspector
General of Registration and another v. Kovai Medical Center and Hospital
Limited and another, fixing the date for final hearing in a batch of cases
pertaining to the applicability of Section 47A to public auctions conducted
under several statutes. He relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court in Inspector General of Registration v. Kanagalakshmi Ganaguru,
2017 SCC OnLine Mad 38100, which distinguished the judgment in
V.N.Devadoss on the ground that market price was determined therein by the
Asset Sale Committee consisting of representatives of IDBI, debenture-holders,
the Government of West Bengal and the Special Director of BIFR. In these
circumstances, learned Advocate General submits that the matter may be kept
pending until a decision is taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
6. In view of the request made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner
to grant leave to initiate separate proceedings as regards refund, the only issue
to be decided is whether proceedings under Section 47A of the Registration Act
lie.
7. In V.N.Devadoss, the Supreme Court dealt with a sale under
supervision of the Board For Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR)in
proceedings under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act,1985.
__________
Page4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:48:31 pm )
In that context, the Supreme Court held as under in paragraphs 16 to 18, which
are set out below:
“16. Market value is a changing concept. The explanation
to sub-Rule (5) makes the position 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. Here, 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 correct price. The factual scenario as
indicated above 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.
17. Sale has been defined under Section 54 of the Transfer
of Property Act, 1882 (in short “the TP Act”). Although the
Act has not included the definition of sale, Section 2(10) of the
Act defines “conveyance” as including a conveyance on sale,
every instrument and every decree or final order of any civil
__________
Page5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:48:31 pm )
court by which property whether immovable or movable or
any estate or interest in any property is transferred to, or
vested in or declared to be of any other person, inter vivos,
and which is not otherwise specifically provided for by
Schedule I or Schedule 1-A, as the case may be.
18. 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. That
being so, the High Court's order is clearly unsustainable and
is set aside. The registration shall be done at the price
disclosed in the document of conveyance. There is no scope
for exercising power under Section 47-A of the Act as there is
no basis for even entertaining a belief that the market value of
the property which is the subject-matter of conveyance has
not been truly set forth with a view to fraudulently evade
payment of proper stamp duty.”
8. In the subsequent judgment in ASL Vyapar, the Supreme Court dealt
with a sale in a civil suit and a sale by the Official Liquidator. In that context,
the Supreme Court held that Section 47A has no application to a public auction
carried out through a court process or by a receiver. These conclusions were
reached after relying upon V.N.Devadoss. Paragraphs 22 & 31 of the said
judgment are set out below:
“22. On the conspectus of the matter, we have not the
slightest hesitation in upholding the view that the provision of
__________
Page6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:48:31 pm )
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.
.. ..
31. 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.”
9. A similar view has also been taken by a Division Bench of this Court
in Inspector General of Registration and others v. K.K.Thirumurugan, 2014
SCC OnLine Mad 11454. In relevant part, paragraph 10 of the said judgment
reads as under:
“10. .. .. The appellants have not been in a position to
show that Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, would
be applicable to a public auction sale of the properties which
are brought for sale, as per the provisions of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and the rules
framed thereunder. It cannot be stated that the document
presented for registration had been undervalued by those who
had presented the document for registration. Therefore, the
question of re-assessing the market value of the property,
which had been brought for sale by way of a public auction,
under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction
__________
Page7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:48:31 pm )
of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002, by invoking Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899,
would not arise. Hence, we find it appropriate to dismiss the
Writ Appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed.”
This judgment was, however, not accepted by the Full Bench of this Court in
Dr.R.Thiagarajan.
10. As on date, the agreed position is that the earlier judgments of the
Supreme Court with regard to the inapplicability of Section 47A to public
auctions continue to hold the field. Although the Supreme Court has decided to
consolidate matters relating thereto and hear the same, no interim protection has
been granted as on date.
11. As is noticeable from extracts set out above, the Supreme Court held
categorically in V.N.Devadoss that Section 47A has no application in
proceedings wherein the market price was determined in a sale under the
supervision of the BIFR. A similar conclusion was drawn in ASL Vyapar in the
context of a court sale by a civil court and by the companies court. In the case at
hand, the sale was effected in course of liquidation proceedings by the
adjudicating authority (i.e. the National Company Law Tribunal) functioning in
terms of the IBC. In the face of the above mentioned judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, which continue to hold the field, I conclude that the petitioner
__________
Page8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:48:31 pm )
is entitled to registration and release of the pending document. Taking note of
the pending proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I, however, grant
leave to the State to initiate proceedings under Section 47A if the question of
law is decided in favour of the State by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Subject to
this observation, the respondents are directed to register and release pending
document no.P/69/2025 to the petitioner within three weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also granted leave to initiate
separate proceedings in respect of refund.
12. The writ petition stands disposed of on the above terms without any
order as to costs.
26-02-2026
Index : Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kj
__________
Page9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:48:31 pm )
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
KJ
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
100, Santhome High Road, Mullima Nagar, Mandavelipakkam, Raja
Annamalaipuram, Chennai, Tamilnadu-600 028.
2.The District Registrar,
The District Registrar Office, No.63/40, Perumal Street, Tindivanam Ho,
Tindivanam-604001.
3.The Sub-Registrar,
Marakkanam Sub-Registration Office, No.1/1, Sannadi Street,
Marakkanam-604 303.
26-02-2026
__________
Page10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 03:48:31 pm )
