SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

Sekarreporter 1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1582305765892984832?t=5eMsgFUynoZhFZmKkhfVyw&s=08 [10/18, 15:11] Sekarreporter 1: *PEARLS OF WISDOM (LATEST JUDGEMENT)* The *Hon’ble Justice R. Subramaniam* has allowed *W.P. No. 23237 of 2018* filed by Bell Tower Engineers LLP and directed the Respondents to refund the excess fee and stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 19,72,620/- for registration

by · Published · Updated

[10/18, 15:11] Sekarreporter 1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1582305765892984832?t=5eMsgFUynoZhFZmKkhfVyw&s=08
[10/18, 15:11] Sekarreporter 1: *PEARLS OF WISDOM (LATEST JUDGEMENT)*

The *Hon’ble Justice R. Subramaniam* has allowed *W.P. No. 23237 of 2018* filed by Bell Tower Engineers LLP and directed the Respondents to refund the excess fee and stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 19,72,620/- for registration of a sale certificate issued under SARFAESI Act and held as follows:-

1) A Sale certificate issued by an authorized officer under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 does not amount to transfer of property and it is only a document evidencing factum of a statutory sale.

2) An Authorized Officer of the Bank under the SARFAESI Act, would be a Revenue Officer in terms of Section 17(2)(xii) read with Section 89(4) of the Registration Act.

3) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Esjaypee Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. General Manager & Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, has effectually sets at naught the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Dr. R. Thiagarajan vs. Inspector General of Registration and therefore, an authorized officer would be a Revenue Officer and the certificate issued by him evidence of such sale and it is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act. It would be sufficient if the document is lodged with the Registrar under Section 89(4) to be filed by him in Book-I maintained.

4) Only stamp duty at 5% under Article 18 of the Stamp Act and Registration Fee at 1% as per Article 1 of the table of the fees prescribed by the State Government under Section 78 of the Registration Act is applicable for a Sal

 

Certificate under SARFAESI Act.

 

[10/18, 15:11] Sekarreporter 1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1582305765892984832?t=5eMsgFUynoZhFZmKkhfVyw&s=08
[10/18, 15:11] Sekarreporter 1: *PEARLS OF WISDOM (LATEST JUDGEMENT)*

The *Hon’ble Justice R. Subramaniam* has allowed *W.P. No. 23237 of 2018* filed by Bell Tower Engineers LLP and directed the Respondents to refund the excess fee and stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 19,72,620/- for registration of a sale certificate issued under SARFAESI Act and held as follows:-

1) A Sale certificate issued by an authorized officer under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 does not amount to transfer of property and it is only a document evidencing factum of a statutory sale.

2) An Authorized Officer of the Bank under the SARFAESI Act, would be a Revenue Officer in terms of Section 17(2)(xii) read with Section 89(4) of the Registration Act.

3) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Esjaypee Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. General Manager & Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, has effectually sets at naught the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Dr. R. Thiagarajan vs. Inspector General of Registration and therefore, an authorized officer would be a Revenue Officer and the certificate issued by him evidence of such sale and it is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act. It would be sufficient if the document is lodged with the Registrar under Section 89(4) to be filed by him in Book-I maintained.

4) Only stamp duty at 5% under Article 18 of the Stamp Act and Registration Fee at 1% as per Article 1 of the table of the fees prescribed by the State Government under Section 78 of the Registration Act is applicable for a Sale Certificate under SARFAESI Act.

 

[10/18, 15:11] Sekarreporter 1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1582305765892984832?t=5eMsgFUynoZhFZmKkhfVyw&s=08
[10/18, 15:11] Sekarreporter 1: *PEARLS OF WISDOM (LATEST JUDGEMENT)*

The *Hon’ble Justice R. Subramaniam* has allowed *W.P. No. 23237 of 2018* filed by Bell Tower Engineers LLP and directed the Respondents to refund the excess fee and stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 19,72,620/- for registration of a sale certificate issued under SARFAESI Act and held as follows:-

1) A Sale certificate issued by an authorized officer under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 does not amount to transfer of property and it is only a document evidencing factum of a statutory sale.

2) An Authorized Officer of the Bank under the SARFAESI Act, would be a Revenue Officer in terms of Section 17(2)(xii) read with Section 89(4) of the Registration Act.

3) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Esjaypee Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. General Manager & Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, has effectually sets at naught the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Dr. R. Thiagarajan vs. Inspector General of Registration and therefore, an authorized officer would be a Revenue Officer and the certificate issued by him evidence of such sale and it is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act. It would be sufficient if the document is lodged with the Registrar under Section 89(4) to be filed by him in Book-I maintained.

4) Only stamp duty at 5% under Article 18 of the Stamp Act and Registration Fee at 1% as per Article 1 of the table of the fees prescribed by the State Government under Section 78 of the Registration Act is applicable for a Sale Certificate under SARFAESI Act.

 

 

 

 

You may also like...