Calcutta High Court
Asl Vyapar Private Ltd vs The Registrar Of Assurances on 26 March, 2010
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
WP No. 1295 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
ASL VYAPAR PRIVATE LTD.
Versus
THE REGISTRAR OF ASSURANCES, KOLKATA & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
Date : 26th March, 2010.
The Court : The petitioner purchased the property in
question for Rs. 87 lakh on the basis of a sale conducted by the Company
Court. The consideration amount has been paid. The Official Liquidator
delivered possession of the property to the petitioner on 20.10.06. Deed of
conveyance was presented in the office of the second respondent. However,
registration of the deed has been kept pending on the ground that the property has not been adequately valued and that the petitioner is liable to pay deficit stamp duty on proper valuation thereof. The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the second respondent to register the deed. 2
I have been informed that because of divergence of opinion of two Hon'ble Division Benches of this Court, a reference has been made to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice by order dated 26.9.08 passed in G.A. No. 1660 of 2008 arising out of APO No. 175 of 2008 for constitution of a larger bench for deciding the following point :
"Whether the provision contained in Section 47A of the Stamp Act (West Bengal Amendment) read with Rule 3 framed there under are applicable to an instrument executed pursuant to an order of sale passed by a Civil Court in a suit for partition which is conducted by a Receiver appointed by the Civil Court by auction after publication in newspapers ?"
Mr. Sen, learned Advocate for the petitioner, however, has placed reliance on a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 7 SCC 438 (V.N. Devadoss vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Ins. & Ors.) in support of his contention that the issue is no longer res integra and that I ought to decide the issue raised herein following the said decision.
Mr. Kar, learned Advocate for the State, however, has contended that the decision in Devadoss (supra) was rendered by the Court in the given facts of the case and would have no universal application. 3
Admittedly, the property in question could not be sold at the reserve price mentioned in the first advertisement and it was only on re-advertisement that the petitioner purchased the property. In Devadoss (supra), the Assets Sales Committee consisted of, inter alia, representative of the Government of West Bengal. Mr. Kar's contention, prima facie, finds support from paragraph 12 of the decision in Devadoss (supra).
Since the reference is pending before the larger bench, I do not consider it proper to decide the issue raised herein. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice may consider the desirability of placing the following issue also before the larger bench for a decision :
"Whether the consideration money fetched for sale of a property in course of liquidation proceedings before the Company Court upon re-advertisement, falling short of the reserve price mentioned in the initial advertisement, or the price so fetched although higher than the reserve price but in the opinion of the registering authority is lower than the market value determinable under Rule 3 of the West Bengal Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 2001, should be treated to be the market value for the purpose of registration and stamp duty and thus provisions of Section 47A of the Stamp Act (West Bengal Amendment) read with Rule 3 framed thereunder would have no application to such Court sale ?"
The records be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice at once.
4
Till such time the reference is decided by the appropriate Bench, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.
All parties concerned are to act on a signed xerox copy of this order on the usual undertakings.
(DIPANKAR DATTA, J.) TR/