Skip to content


District Registrar, Chennai and Others Vs. M/s. Lebara Hotels Pvt.Ltd., Chennai and Another - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.A.No. 1000 of 2016 & C.M.P.No. 13022 of 2016
Judge
AppellantDistrict Registrar, Chennai and Others
RespondentM/s. Lebara Hotels Pvt.Ltd., Chennai and Another
Excerpt:
.....objection, it was found that there was revenue loss to the tune of rs.1,43,00,000/- as deficit stamp duty and rs.10,99,975/- as deficit registration fees. it also appears that the sale deed in respect of the second respondent herein, the vendor of the first respondent was originally withheld on the ground of deficit stamp duty and subsequently on the basis of the order passed in w.p.no.24015 of 2003 filed by the second respondent herein, it was released on receipt of some deficit stamp duty and in the meantime, the property was subjected to sarfaesi proceedings and ultimately, the property was sold. 4. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent that the document having already been registered in favour of the original vendor viz., five years ago, now, they.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 27.5.2016 passed in W.P.No.15762 of 2016 on the file of this court.)

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties for some time.

2. The writ appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in quashing the order passed by the third appellant herein and directing to register the sale deed submitted by the first respondent herein and release the same.

3. It appears that the sale deed submitted by the writ petitioner/first appellant herein was withheld by the registering authority on the ground that during the course of audit objection, it was found that there was revenue loss to the tune of Rs.1,43,00,000/- as deficit stamp duty and Rs.10,99,975/- as deficit registration fees. It also appears that the sale deed in respect of the second respondent herein, the vendor of the first respondent was originally withheld on the ground of deficit stamp duty and subsequently on the basis of the order passed in W.P.No.24015 of 2003 filed by the second respondent herein, it was released on receipt of some deficit stamp duty and in the meantime, the property was subjected to SARFAESI proceedings and ultimately, the property was sold.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent that the document having already been registered in favour of the original vendor viz., five years ago, now, they cannot withhold the subsequent document.

5. Learned Advocate General would submit that steps had already been taken to recover the deficit stamp duty well within time and the document was withheld for clearance of the amount but, somehow it has been released in favour of the original purchaser on the basis of the order from the court, but, ultimately as per Stamps Act the deficit stamp duty, if any, has to be paid by the subsequent purchaser or by the vendors as the case may be.

6. In the facts and circumstances, it is for the vendor to pay the amount which is due to the Government with interest thereon for the remaining amount to the unpaid. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ appeal. It is for the respondent Government to proceed as against the vendor of the property either by proceeding to recover the deficit stamp duty or by attaching some other property of the vendor. Now it is submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent herein that the document is now with the Government. Therefore, it is for the purchaser to extend their co-operation to the Government in collecting the deficit stamp duty and seek for release of the document. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //