Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.28 seconds)Registrar Of Assurances vs Asl Vyapar Private Ltd. on 10 November, 2022
9. In view of the above categoric pronouncement of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court we conclude that the impugned action of
the Sub-Registrar viz., the 3rd respondent are unwarranted and
against law. The learned Single Judge however dismissed the
writ petition at the admission stage itself and concluded that it
will be open to the petitioner to raise all the issues in the 47-A
proceedings. Unfortunately the attention of the learned Single
Judge was not drawn to the recent pronouncement of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Registrar of Assurances and another Vs. ASL
VYAPAR Private Ltd. & another (supra). Hence, we are forced to
interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
V.N.Devadoss vs The Chief Revenue Control Officer on 27 November, 2006
8. The Court upheld the view expressed in V.N.Devadass
Vs. Chief Revenue Control Office (supra) and answered the
reference as follows:-
M/S Esjaypee Impex Private Limited vs The Asst. General Manager And ... on 11 September, 2020
“25. From the above discussion, it could be seen that in view
of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Esjaypee Impex Pvt Ltd v. Assistant General Manager and
Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, the law as it stands today is
that an Authorised Officer, who conducts a sale under the
provisions of the SARFAESI Act, would be a Revenue Officer
and the certificate issued by him in evidence of such sale,
would be a document which is not compulsorily registrable
under Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act. It would be
5/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.2737 and 2738 of 2024
sufficient, if the document is lodged with the Registrar under
Section 89(4) to be filed by him in the Book-I maintained by
him.
K.V. Kadiresan & Com., By Partner K.V. ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Reptd, By The ... on 14 June, 1984
10. In fine, the writ appeal is allowed the order of the
learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition is set aside. The
demand made by the sub-Registrar is also set aside. The 47-A
8/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.2737 and 2738 of 2024
proceedings are quashed. All duty collected from the appellant
except the duty of 5% + 1% i.e., found payable as per the
judgment of this Court in Bell Tower Enterprises LLP, Rep. by
its Managing Partner Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its
Secretary to Government (Supra) will be refunded to the
petitioner with interest at 9% from the date of payment till date of
repayment. It is seen that the petitioner has also paid a sum of
Rs.74,50,000/- towards additional duty in the proceedings
under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. The said sum will also be
refunded to the petitioner with interest at 9% from the date of
payment viz., 22.03.2024 till date of repayment. No costs.
Article 18 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 23 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Inspector General Of Registration vs Kanagalakshmi Ganaguru on 21 August, 2017
The decisions of this Court in the Inspector General of
Registration v. K.K.Thirumurugan, (Division Bench,) The
Inspector General of Registration v. Kanagalakshmi
Ganaguru, (Division Bench), Dr.R..Thiagarajan v. Inspector
General of Registration, (Full Bench) and The Inspector
General of Registration v. Prakash Chand Jain, (Division
Bench) are no longer good law, in view of the pronouncement
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Esjaypee Impex Pvt Ltd v.
N.C.Suresh Kumar vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 14 August, 2023
6. The said judgment was also followed by another
learned Single Judge of this Court in N.C.Suresh Kumar and
another Vs. Inspector General of Registration reported in 2023
(5) MLJ 176. Therefore, the demand made by the Sub-Registrar
that the petitioner must pay enhanced stamp duty is not justified.