Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Tandra Mukherjee & Ors vs Sebi & Ors on 3 May, 2018
Author: Aniruddha Bose
Bench: Aniruddha Bose
1 03.05.2018
Item No.1 Ct. No.11 CHC W.P. 5437 (W) of 2014 Tandra Mukherjee & ors.
Vs. SEBI & ors.
with W.P. 16534 (W) of 2013 Tower Infotech Ltd. & anr.
Vs. UOI & ors.
With C.A.N.94 of 2017 With C.A.N.8103 of 2017 With C.A.N.8655 of 2017 With C.A.N.10159 of 2017 With C.A.N.10965 of 2017 With C.A.N.12251 of 2017 With C.A.N.2300 of 2018 With W.P.18229 (W) of 2014 Amal Kr. Nandy & ors.
Vs. SEBI & ors.
With W.P.21910 (W) of 2017 Birendranath Koyal Vs. U.O.I. & ors.
Mr. Subir Sanyal ...for the petitioners in W.P. 16534 (W) of 2013 Mr. Ratul Biswas ...for the applicant in CAN 12251 of 2017 Mr. Debabrata Karar, Mr. Debopriyo Karar, Mr. Samik Dey ...for the petitioner in W.P.21910 (W) of 2017 Mr. Manoranjan Jana ...for the applicant in CAN 94 of 2017 Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rabindra Narayan Dutta, Mr. Hare Krishna Halder, Mr. Tulshi Das Ray ...for the State 2 Mr. Arpa Chakraborty ...for the Union of India Mr. Dilip Kumar Chakraborty ...for the Union of India in W.P.21910 (W) of 2017 Mr. Partha Sarathi Biswas ...for the Union of India in W.P. 5437 (W) of 2014 Mr. Syamantak Banerjee ...for the SEBI Mr. Neguive Ahmed ...for the Committee We heard the appearing litigants in W.P.16534 (W) of 2013 of 24th April, 2018 and an order was suggested to us by one of the two intending purchasers, Subrata Das. On considering such suggestion, we partly dictated an order, but before signing that order, we felt we ought to list these matters again as all the parties having interest in the subject-matter of this application were not present before us on that day. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find certain modifications are necessary in the order we had dictated in Court on 24th April, 2018. That order was not signed by us and we are recalling that order to be substituted by this order. The operating part of the order which we had dictated remains the same. We are only incorporating certain additional facts therein, which in our view is necessary for appreciating the background in which the directions are being issued.
The application registered as C.A.N.2300 of 2018 has been taken out by said Subrata Das, one of the two intending co- purchasers of certain properties of Tower Infotech Ltd. lying in the State of Assam. This application arises in connection with an order passed by us on 29th November, 2017. By that order, we had directed the Registrar, Original Side, to execute a sale deed for and 3 on behalf of the Tower Infotech Limited in respect of the property described in Paragraph-3 of C.A.N.8270 of 2017. A copy of that application has been made annexure to the present application marked 'A'. Description of the property appears at Paragraph-3 of the said application, at page 16 of the instant application. A report of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Silchar (Sadar) records the total area to be 10 Katta, 4 Chatak,5 Gonda and the total plinth area of the building thereon to be 3600 sq.ft. This appears from pages 39 and 42 of the application forming part of the annexures to the present application. In the draft Deed of which registration is sought for, the area is shown to be 10.37 kattahs and the area of the R.C.C. building standing thereon has been shown to be 3200 sq.ft. The Registrar, Original Side has filed a report in which this anomaly relating to the total area of the property has been pointed out. The relevant part of this report records:
"On 15.02.2018 (Flag-F), learned advocate for the petitioners/intending purchasers submitted a draft Deed of Sale along with Plan for approval an necessary action. On scrutiny of the draft Deed of Sale, it is found that the property described for purchase is not identical with the property described in the Schedule in the mother Deed (Flag-G). While the total area of the property described in Dag Nos.241, 242 and 243 is 10 (ten) Katthas 4 (four) Chottaks 5 (five) Gondas in aggregate, covered by Municipal Holding No.318 (old) and 329 (new), Ward No.26 of Silchar Municipal Board, the petitioners in their draft Sale Deed have opted to purchase only a total area of 10.37 Katthas of land which is less by .08 Katthas from the mother Deed.
Furthermore, the petitioners have opted to purchase the R.C.C. single storied building of an area of 3200 sq.ft. at Mouza Tarapur out of the total are of 3600 sq.ft. of the building standing on the land. Both schedule of properties in the mother Deed and draft Deed however are shown butted by same boundaries. Therefore, it is not clear which part of the property the purchasers have 4 left out from their Deed as they have mentioned the same boundary. Due to such discrepancies in the area of land and the building standing thereon as described in the original Deed and the proposed Sale Deed, the draft Deed submitted by the petitioners could not be verified in respect of the identity of the property." We find from this report as well as from the records mentioned by the settlement authorities of Silchar, Assam that there is discrepancy as regards total area of the property which the applicant intends to purchase. Stand of the parties appearing before us is that the area described in the mother deed ought to prevail. So far as physical description of the property is concerned, we find from the report of the Registrar, Original Side, that in both the mother deed and the draft deed the property has been shown to be butted by the same boundary. We are also apprised by Mr. Sanyal, learned counsel appearing for the company that valuation made by the officer of the Government of Assam was on the basis of the mother deed and offer of the bidder is almost double to that of such Government valuation in monetary terms. Under these circumstances, we direct the learned Registrar, Original Side to proceed on the basis of area of the property described in the mother deed, which is corroborated by the settlement record. The draft deed may be altered accordingly and executed within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The intending purchaser to bear all costs for registration and ancillary expenses. Parties as well as the registering authorities to act on the basis of server copy of this order.
Let this application be listed after four weeks and Registrar, Original Side shall submit a report on that date on the aspect of progress made in the registration process. In Re: W.P.21910 (W) of 2017 5 Learned counsel for the writ petitioner in W.P.21910 (W) of 2017 prays for referring the claim of the writ petitioner therein before the Committee. Such prayer is granted. The aforesaid petitioner is given liberty to approach the Committee.
Matters to be listed on 7th May, 2018.
(Aniruddha Bose, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)