The main legal point established is that the assignment deeds did not attract stamp duty under the Kerala Stamp Act and Indian Stamp Act, and the court directed registration at a tentative rate suggested by the Government.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner, Phoenix ARC Private Limited, is a company as defined in clause (ba) of Section 2 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’ for short). It is an asset reconstruction company registered with the Reserve Bank of India. As per Section 5 of the SARFAESI Act, any asset reconstruction company may acquire financial assets of any Bank or financial institutions which are classified as Non-Performing Asset. The petitioner got assigned debts along with the right to proceed against the underlying security interest as envisaged under Section 5 of the SARFAESI Act from the State Bank of Travancore, the Federal Bank Ltd and the South Indian Bank Ltd. The petitioner sought to register the assignment deeds in favour of it [Exts. P2 to P4] with the Sub Registrar, Ernakulam (respondent No.5). The petitioner submitted before the Sub Registrar that in view of Section 5(1A) of the SARFAESI Act and 8F of the Indian Stamp Act,1899, no stamp duty is payable to assignment deeds. Respondent No.5 referred the matter to respondent No.3, the District Registrar (General)/District Collector, Ernakulam, for adjudication. Respondent No.3 passed Exts.P9, P10 and P11 orders holding that as the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, does not fix stamp duty for assignment agreement, the deeds come under ‘conveyance’ as provided in Section 2(d) of the Kerala Stamp Act. Respondent No.3 further found that stamp duty, as provided in Article 21 of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, being 8% of the purchase money, is to be remitted. The petitioner challenges Exts.P9, P10 and P11 orders issued by respondent No.3.

2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in the Writ Petition.

“(a) call for records leading to the passing of Exts.P9, P10 and P11 and quash the same by a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction

(b) declare that Exts.P2, P3 and P4 do not require any stamp duty in view of the coming into force of Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act 2016 (Act 44 of 2016) and as per the exemption from stamp duty provided under Section 8F of the Indian Stamp Act

(c) issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 5th respondent to register the Ext.P2, P3 and P4 as per Section 8F of the Indian Stamp Act read with Section 5(1A) of the SARFAESI Act, without applicability of any Stamp Duty

“(c-i) or in the alternative issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to bestow the benefits of Ext.P6 notification on the petitioner”.

“(c-ii) Declare that the provisions of Section 8F of the Indian Stamp Act are applicable to Malabar District which is the part of the Administrative District of the Madras Presedency, a part A state before 01-11-1956”

“(c-iii)to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 4th respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P12.”

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri. A.V. Varghese submitted the following:-

As there is no specific provision in respect of 'assignment agreements' in the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, the ‘conveyances’ referred to in the writ petitions fall under the exemption mentioned in Article 21 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. Therefore, the stamp duty payable for the assignment deeds in question is under Article 55(c)(ii) of the Kerala Stamp Act. Regarding the registration fee Article 1(v) of the Table of Fees notified by the Government of Kerala is applicable. In view of Article 55(c)(ii) of the Kerala Stamp Act r/w Article 1(v) of the Table of Fees, Exts.P9 to P11 are liable to be quashed, and respondent No.5 is bound to register the assignment deeds by capping the stamp duty at Rs.50/-and registration fee at Rs.210/-.

3.1 The learned Senior Counsel relied on Kotak Mahendra Bank Ltd. v. State of U.P. and