AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.N.H. Zaidi, J
Heard parties' Counsel on appeal. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 3.1.2013 passed by the DRT, Jaipur in Contempt Petition No. 148/2011 in Execution Case No. 109/2003 whereby the alleged Contemnor No. 5 Mr. Govind Sharma. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, State of Rajasthan and Contemnor No. 6. Mr. Heman Gera, Inspector General (Stamps and Registration), Government of Rajasthan, Udaipur have been directed to reconsider their decision qua the registration of the sale certificate and to instruct the Sub-Registrar Bhilwada to register the sale certificate dated 6.1.2010 issued by the Recovery Officer of DRT, Jaipur. The facts and circumstances of the case indicate that an O.A. No. 106/2001 filed by the Bank of Rajasthan was allowed against the borrower company (Mewar Textile Mills Ltd., Bhilwada) and R.C. was accordingly drawn. In the recovery proceedings of the R.C. No. 109/2003, the property of the CD was sold by the R.O. which was purchased by the respondent M/s. Geetanjali Infosystems Pvt. Ltd. for a sale price of Rs. 125.20 crores, vide auction held on 4.12.2004. After the due deposit of the sale consideration the sale was confirmed on 5.1.2010 and a Certificate of Sale was issued in favour of the auction purchaser on 6.1.2010. Copy of the sale certificate was issued by the R.O. to the Sub-Registrar of Bhilwada for registration. The auction purchaser also approached the Sub-Registrar and handed over the original sale certificate on 7.4.2010 and sought exemption from the payment of the stamp duty on certain ground. The question qua the exemption of payment of stamp duty remained pending for a long time and ultimately the exemption was declined by the Sub-Registrar on 1.12.2011. Thereafter the auction purchaser paid the required stamp duty on 6.1.2012 but the registration of the document was declined by the I.G. (Stamps and Registration) on 17.12.2012.
The auction purchaser thereafter filed an application before the R.O. seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the Sub-Registrar and the I.G. (Stamps and Registration) for non-compliance of its direction qua the registration of the document. When the R.O. did not make any order, the DRT was approached and the learned P.O. initiated contempt measures against the concerned Sub-Registrar as well as against the Collector, Bhilwada, Deputy Secretary and Principal Secretary Finance Department. Government of Rajasthan and the I.G. (Stamps and Registration) and they were issued the directions, vide the order impugned, as stated above. Feeling aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by all the alleged contemnors.
Dr. Singhvi has mainly stressed on the point, with which I also agree, that the learned Tribunal below has no jurisdiction under the RDDBFI Act to initiate contempt proceedings against the appellants. He also submits that the auction purchaser/respondent is not remediless and it has remedy in law against the order of the I.G. (Stamps and Registration) but it was knocking the wrong-door of the DRT qua the registration of the document. According to him, the Sub-Registrar has the jurisdiction to decline the registration, whether rightly or wrongly, and if any person is aggrieved with his order the same may be assailed before the appropriate forum but not before the R.O. or the DRT. He also contends that after the issuance of the sale certificate, the R.O. as well as the DRT had become functus officio and they had no role to play in the registration of the sale certificate.
Mr. Salecha, however, submits that the sale certificate was infact registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bhilwada on 6.1.2012 vide Registration No. 2012000247 in Book No. 1, Volume No. 2, which was affixed on pages from 325 to 342 in Additional Book No. 1, Volume No. 5, but the endorsement of registration was not signed by the Sub-Registrar and the document has not been returned till date. Dr. Singhvi, however, disputes this contention and says that the document has yet not been registered as per law.
Mr. Salecha further points out to a communication date 1.11.2012 sent by the Sub-Registrar, Bhilwada to the Collector. Bhilwada, which says that the document stood registered as No. 247/2012 dated 6.1.2012 and that communication further says that the document was not having the signature of the Registrar as per Sections 60 and 39 and the I.G. (Stamps and Registration) was requested to accord permission for signing the document so that the document may be returned after the signature. Dr. Singhvi, however, submits that the request of the Sub-Registrar to put the signature on the document has been declined after due consideration, vide communication dated 17.12.2012 of the Additional Inspector General of the Stamps and Registration.
Having considered the submissions of the parties' learned Counsel and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, 1 am of the considered view that the Tribunal below has no jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings against the appellants and after the issuance of the sale certificate in accordance with the provisions of the RDDBFI Act as well as the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, both the R.O. and the DRT had become functus officio and they have no role to play in the registration of the Sale Certificate and this issue does not fall within their domain. In view of this, the order impugned cannot be allowed to sustain and is liable to be set aside. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the order impugned is set aside. Copy of the order be furnished to the parties' and be also sent to the DRT concerned.