- (1.) The only issue raised in this appeal is as to the quantum of stamp duty payable for the registration of the deed of sale of a property, where the sale was conducted by an authorised officer of a bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002.
(2.) The reliefs claimed in the suit are set out:- "a) A decree for declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to have Deed of Conveyance approved and executed by the defendants and each one of them through their authorised officer as per draft Deed of Conveyance forwarded by the Plaintiff under cover of a letter dated February 20, 2018; b) A decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants and each one of them through their authorised officer to forthwith approve the draft Deed of Conveyance forwarded by the plaintiff under cover of a letter dated February 20, 2018 and to execute the said Deed so that the same may be registered ; c) Alternatively, a decree be passed directing the Registrar, Original Side of this Hon'ble Court and/or any fit and proper person to forthwith approve the Draft Deed of Conveyance forwarded by the plaintiff under cover of a letter dated February 20, 2018 and to execute the Deed of Conveyance on the basis thereof on behalf of the vendors so that the same may be registered ; d) A decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and each one of them from executing any Sale Certificate, Deed of Sale or any Deed of Conveyance in favour of any other party save and except the plaintiff named above in respect of the said property described more fully in the Schedule annexed hereto and marked 'C' ; e) Receiver ; f) Injunction ; g) Costs ; h) Such further and/or other reliefs."
(3.) It appears that the Court directed the execution of the deed of conveyance by the bank within a particular period of time whereupon the plaintiff-appellant approached the registering authority and was informed that the stamp duty payable for the registration would be well in excess of what the agreed price of sale would otherwise warrant. The matter was carried back to the Trial Court by the appellant for the Court to render an opinion as to whether the demand by the registering authority was justified, particularly in the context of a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported at (2010) 3 CHN 651 ( State of West Bengal v. Sati Enclave Private Limited ). According to the appellant, in the light of the dictum in Sati Enclave, when a sale is conducted in open market upon inviting offers therefor, the registering authority cannot harbour any suspicion that the sale was conducted at any price other than what ought to be the fair value for the property.;