Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

23. Further, when the sale certificate is voluntarily registered by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis parties, the same is payable only as per the Article 18 of the Stamp Act, no transfer duty is payable. According to them, since the sale certificate cannot be construed as conveyance, the question of paying the stamp duty does not arise at all. It is the further contention that in Esjaypee Impex Private Limited Vs. Assistant General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, reported in 2021 (11) SCC 537, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified that filing of the sale certificate obviates the registration. Therefore, no stamp duty required to be paid. Similarly, the same view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inspector General of Registration and another vs. Madhuramabal reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2079

25. In support of their contentions, they relied on the various judgments as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis a.Masarat-ul-Nissa vs Adit Ram, ILR 1880 Vol 5 568 b. MCD v Pramod Kumar Gupta, 1991 1 SCC 633 c.Chidambara Manickam v Shakeena, (2008) 1 CTC 660 d. Dr Meera Thinakaran v State of T.N, (2012) 2 LW 351 e.P.Pandian vs. Inspector General of Registration reported in (2016) 2 LW f. Esjaypee Impex v Assistant General Manager, (2021) 11 SCC 537 g.Order in O.S.A 122 of 2010 (S Martin v Official Liquidator) h.Inspector General of Registration v Madhurambal reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 2079 i.Haldiram Incorporation Private Limited v Amrit Hatcheries Private Limited reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1706 j. Bell Tower Enterprises v State of TN, 2022 7 MLJ 549 h. N.C. Suresh Kumar. V Inspector General of Registration, 2023 5 MLJ

26. Whereas, Mr.R.Ramanlaal, the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Esjaypee's case have never considered the Stamp Act and other relevant provisions which require the stamp on the sale certificate. According to him, the Full Bench of this Court in Dr.R.Thiagarajan's case is still holding the field. Therefore, it is the contention that sale certificate requires a compulsory registration, unless properly stamped, it cannot be used for any other purposes. It is the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that Section 54 of the Transfer of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Property makes it very clear that any transfer of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, can be made only be a registered instrument. According to him, the corresponding amendment is also made under Section 4 of the Transfer of Property Act. Paragraph 2 and 3 of the Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act shall be read as supplemental to the Indian Registration Act. Therefore, this aspect is never considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Esjaypee and Madurambal's cases.

27. It is the further contention that sale certificate issued by the bank under SARFAESI Act will be a conveyance as per Section 2(10) of the Stamp Act. According to him, the authorized officer steps into the shoe of the mortgagee, therefore, it should be treated as inter vivos transfer. Therefore, as per Article 18 of the Stamp Act, stamp has to be paid compulsorily on the sale certificate. The Stamp Act makes compulsory duty and the stamp on the sale certificate, which has not been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esjaypee and Madurambal's cases. If the document is required to be registered under the Transfer of Property Act has not been registered under the Registration Act, such document is not admissible in evidence of any transaction affecting immovable properties. Further, Section 17(2) of the Registration Act deals with the sale only by the Court or the Revenue Officer whereas authorized officer would not come within the purview of the Revenue https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Officer. The Revenue Officer is only employed in business of any branch of public revenue. Therefore, Section 17(2) will not apply to the sale made by the authorized officer under SARFAESI Act. Such view of the matter, proceedings under Section 47-A is also permissible.