G SRINIVASAN Vs. SUB REGISTRAR UDUMALPET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE cases are relating to the purchases made and documents registered by virtue of the sale effected by the official liquidator pursuant to the orders passed by the concerned Company Courts.

(2.) IN W.P.No,29413 of 2007, the petitioner, based on the advertisement published by the second respondent/official liquidator of this Court for sale of the property measuring an extent of 2 acres 23 1/2 cents comprised in Survey Nos.183/C1 and 184/B1 in Pukkulam Village, Udumalpet Taluk came to know that the property belonging to M/s.Sri Muthukumaran Cotton Mills Private Limited, which was ordered to be wound up by this Court by order dated 23.07.2002 in C.P.No,5 of 2000 and thereafter all the properties came to the control of the official liquidator. IN the Court auction sale which was conducted in the Company Court, the petitioner was declared as the highest bidder for a total sale consideration of Rs.75 lakhs and the petitioner has also deposited the amount as per the order dated 30.10.2006 in C.P.No,5 of 2000. The sale was confirmed in favour of the petitioner on 13.11.2006 in C.A.No.1987 of 2006 and pursuant to the said confirmation, the second respondent executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 15.12.2006 and the document was duly presented before the first respondent for registration, which was registered as Document No,4508 of 2007. However, the document was not released while the first respondent has issued a notice stating that the value of Rs.75 lakhs does not reflect the true value under Section 47A (1) of the INdian Stamp Act. The first respondent has also sent a impugned communication stating to that effect, which is challenged in the said writ petition.

(3.) IN such view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no suppression of the valuation and therefore Section 47A of INdian Stamp Act would not apply. He has also relied upon latest judgment of the Supreme Court in V.N.Devadoss Vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer cum INspector and Others ((2009) 7 SCC 438) to substantiate the contention that for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction under Section 47A of the Act, the transfer must be for a fraudulent intention to evade payment of proper stamp duty. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, when once the sale has been effected under the supervision of the High Court, there is no question of any fraudulent intention to evade the payment of proper stamp duty and therefore, the entire proceedings under Section 47A are to be nullified.