SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 599

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ALOK ARADHE, C.J., M.S. KARNIK, J.
The Collector of Stamps - Appellant 
Versus
Pinak Bharat & Co. - Respondents 
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.14 OF 2024 IN COMMERCIAL EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.22 OF 2016, COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO.28626 OF 2023, IN COMMERCIAL EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.22 OF 2016, INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.1988 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO.28626 OF 2023 IN COMMERCIAL EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.22 OF 2016
Decided on : 17-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Smt Jyoti Chavan, Addl.G.P. for State Appellant in
COMAP/14/2024 and for Respondent No.2 in
COMAPL/28626/2023.
Mr Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Mr Prerak A. Sharma, for the
Appellant in COMAPL/28626/2023 and for Respondent No.2 in
COMAP/14/2024.

A court-monitored public auction establishes the true market value of property, which cannot be reassessed by the Collector of Stamps.

Headnote:

(A) Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 - Sections 2(na), 3, 25, and Article 16 - Appeals against the order determining the market value of property sold in a court auction. The appellant contended that the court sale price should be accepted as the true market value, while the Collector of Stamps argued for a higher valuation. The court found that the auction process was transparent and should not be interfered with by the Collector. (Paras 1-28)

(B) Public Auction - The court emphasized that a public auction monitored by the court is the most transparent method for determining market value, and the Registering Authority cannot reassess the value set by the court. (Paras 19-30)

Facts of the case:
The appeals arose from the sale of a property in a public auction conducted by the court, with a history of failed auctions and tenant occupancy affecting the property’s value. The property was ultimately sold for Rs.15.30 crores after multiple reductions in reserve price. (Paras 3-5)

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the sale price of Rs.15.30 crores should be accepted as the market value for stamp duty purposes, emphasizing the transparency of the auction process. (Paras 21-24)

Issues: The primary issues included whether the Collector of Stamps could challenge the market value determined by the court and the implications of tenant occupancy on property valuation. (Paras 6-10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in a court-monitored auction, the price set is the market value, and the Registering Authority cannot question it, ensuring the integrity of the auction process. (Paras 18-30)

Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Karnik, J.

1. These Appeals challenge the order dated 27th March 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The appellant-Pinak Bharat & Co. in Commercial Appeal (L) No. 28626 of 2023 is aggrieved by that part of the impugned order which stipulates “if the sale price is at or below the valuation obtained, then the valuation will serve as the current market value”; whereas the Appellant- the Collector of Stamps, Mumbai City in Commercial Appeal No.14 of 2024 challenges that part of the impugned order whereby it is held that the Collector of Stamps cannot determine true market value of a property sold in public auction conducted by Court and the valuation report obtained by the Court should be accepted. Since the common order is under challenge, the present appeals are disposed of by a common judgment and order.

2. We refer to the facts in Commercial Appeal (L) No.28626 of 2023. The Appellant No.1-Pinak Bharat & Co. (hereinafter referred to as “Pinak Bharat & Co.” for short) is a partnership firm and the Original Judgment Creditor. The Appellant No.2 is the partner of Appellant No.1 as well as the partner of M/s. Win Win Associates, a sister concern of Pinak Bharat & Co., in whose favour the sale of the subject property came to be confirmed vide Order dated 30th October 2018 and the Certificate of Sale dated 30th November 2018 came to be issued. Respondent No.1- Anil Ramrao Naik is the Original Judgment Debtor. Respondent No.2 is the Collector of Stamps (hereinafter referred to as “the Collector of Stamps”).

3. A few relevant facts material to the decision are :-

On 25th September 2015 an Award was passed in Arbitration proceedings against Anil Ramrao Naik (Respondent No.1) to pay Pinak Bharat & Co. a sum of Rs.3,50,30,150/- together with interest @ 12% p.a. from 22nd February 2005 amounting to approximately Rs.9.39 crores. The Warrant of Sale was issued by this Court on 18th October 2016 in Execution Application No.22 of 2016. The first auction was fixed when no bids were received. This Court on 17th January 2018 passed an order reducing the reserve price from Rs.32.24 crores to Rs.25 crores. There were tenants situated in the property.

4. Learned Single Judge passed an order on 28th February 2018 directing the Sheriff to conduct an auction sale after a gap of 45 days. Since no bids were received the reserve price was reduced to Rs.18 crores. On 3rd May 2018 this Court directed the third auction to take place at a reduced price of Rs.15 crores.

5. The Appellant-Pinak Bharat & Co. was granted leave on 1st August 2018 to participate in the third auction and to submit a bid. This Court on 24th September 2018 confirmed the sale for Rs.15.30 crores in favour of Pinak Bharat and Co. The order dated 30th October 2018 confirms that the entire balance purchase price is paid and after setting off the awarded decree amount of Rs.9,39,21,640/-, a sale is confirmed in favour of Appellant No.2-M/s. Win Win Associates. The Sale Certificate came to be issued in favour of M/s. Win Win Associates on 30th November 2018 by this Court.

6. The said Sale Certificate dated 30th November 2018 was impounded under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) by the Sub Registrar, Mumbai City on 24th December 2018 and was sent to the Collector of Stamps for adjudication. The Collector of Stamps passed an interim order on 11th April 2019 and thereafter a final order dated 11th April 2019 thereby holding the market value of the property as Rs. 32.24 crores and the stamp duty payable as Rs.1,61,20,000/-. It was directed that penalty is also payable of Rs.6,44,800/-. The said order records that there are totally 60 tenants in the said property. The stamp duty is levied as per Article 16 read with Article 25(b) of the said Act.

7. Pinak Bharat & Co. preferred an Appeal under Section 32B of the said Act to the Additional Controller of Stamps challenging the order dated 11th April 2019 read with th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top