SUNDARAM BNP PARHAS HOME FINANCE LIMITED REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER Vs. SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR AND STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in all these writ petitions is a financial institution and is registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a securitization company within the meaning of the securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. 2002 (for short, the securitization Act).

(2.) FACTS narrated are with reference to W.P. No. 27475/2009). The petitioner -Company being a financial institution had advanced loans to the employee's of the ITIA for the purpose of purchase of house sites. One such loan was given to one Purushotham in respect of site No. 1 situate at 110/90 Kogihu Village. (sic) Hobli. The borrower did not pay the loan amount. Hence, became a defaulter. The petitioner initialed proceedings under the section and obtained an order from the Chief Judicial Magistrate in C.Misc. No. 81/07 on 04.01.2008. Pursuant to the said order, the company took possession of the properly. The said properly was put up for sale and it was sold in favour of one Smt. Koushalya. Sri K. Muthuswami and Smt. K. Latha and a sale certificate was also issued in respect of the said silo. The authorized officer of the petitioner company sent a communication on 26.3.2009 along with a copy of the sale certificate to the first respondent requesting him In enter the transaction in Book. I as required under Section (89)(4) of the registration Act.1908. The first respondent, however, issued a notice on 13.04.2009 for which the petitioner company has replied pressing into service certain judgments rendered by this Court as well as by the Apex Court indicating that whenever a copy of the sale certificate is sent, the same does not require registration and is exempted under the Registration Act as well as under the Karnataka Stamp Act. The said reply did not find favour with the respondents. Hence, two communications were issued by them at Annexures H and J indicating that the required stump duly is to be paid under Article 15 of the Karnataka Stamp Act. The said communications are impugned in this writ petition.

(3.) MR . Narendra Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the revenue supports die notice. He submits that the decisions which are sought to be pressed into service have no bearing on the facts of the case. He further submits that stamp duty becomes payable on the copy of the sale certificate and attracts registration fee also. He would press into service the provisions of Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, inasmuch as if the document is sought to be pressed into service in any legal proceedings the same can be impounded for non payment of stamp duty.