IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J.
Abdul Azeez, S/o. Pareethu – Appellant
Versus
The Authorized Officer, Phoenix Arc. Ltd – Respondent
W.P.(C).33707 of 2023 & OP(DRT).453 of 2023
Decided on : 10-01-2024
Stamp Duty - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 - Article 22, Section 25 - Conveyance, Transfer of Loan Exposures - Interpretation of Stamp Duty Provisions and Loan Transfers - Trust Requirement for Asset Reconstruction Company - Dismissal of Writ Petition and OP(DRT)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Class A Contractor, sought to set aside an order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to assist an Asset Reconstruction Company in taking possession of the petitioner's property under the Securitisation Act. The petitioner contested the validity of the assignment deed, stamp duty, and the status of the Asset Reconstruction Company.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition and OP(DRT), ruling that the transfer of loan interest to the Asset Reconstruction Company did not amount to conveyance under the Kerala Stamp Act. The court also found that the Asset Reconstruction Company satisfied the requirements of the Securitisation Act as a Trust.
Issues: Validity of assignment deed, stamp duty on loan transfers, status of Asset Reconstruction Company as a Trust.
Ratio Decidendi: The transfer of loan interest to an Asset Reconstruction Company does not constitute conveyance under the Kerala Stamp Act, and the Asset Reconstruction Company can satisfy the requirements of the Securitisation Act as a Trust.
Final Decision: The writ petition and OP(DRT) were dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33707/2023, who is a Class A Contractor approved by the Government of Kerala, has filed this writ petition seeking to set aside Ext.P3 order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur. Ext.P3 order has been passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur in MC No.441/2023 filed by the respondent-Asset Reconstruction Company. By Ext.P3 order, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has appointed an Advocate Commissioner to assist the Company to take possession of the petition schedule property, invoking Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. The petitioner had availed financial advance from the South Indian Bank. The petitioner met with an accident in the year 2015 and was under continued treatment and had to undergo a major surgery. As the petitioner defaulted payments, the Bank invoked the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 to recover the amounts due from the petitioner.
3. The petitioner was informed that the assets and liabilities in respect of the loan account of the petitioner had been assigned to the respondent-Asset Reconstruction Company on 17.03.2017 as per Ext.P2. On 06.07.2017, the respondent informed the petitioner that symbolic possession of the secured asset has been taken. The petitioner hence filed SA No.66/2018 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam, which is pending.
4. It is during the pendency of SA No.66/2018 that the respondent filed MC No.441/2023 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court. The counsel for the petitioner argued that MC No.441/2023 is not maintainable. Ext.P2 agreement assigning the secured assets to the respondent-Asset Reconstruction Company, is not enforceable. Ext.P2 assignment deed is not executed on sufficient stamp paper. Ext.P2 is in violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. The respondent is not a State or instrumentality of the State. The respondent is therefore not exempted from paying stamp duty.
5. The counsel for the petitioner argued that stamp duty at the rate of 8% has to be paid on Ext.P2 assignment/agreement in view of Article 22 in the Kerala Stamp Act. The respondent has paid only Rs.500/-towards stamp duty. Therefore, Ext.P2 cannot be relied upon.
6. The counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that the Asset Reconstruction Company as contemplated under Section 3 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 should be a Trust. The respondent has not produced any document to show that the respondent is a Trust.
7. When the petitioner filed IA No.2614/2023 praying to stay all further proceedings pursuant to a dispossession notice, the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the IA holding that the petitioner has miserably failed to make out a prima facie case so as to get the relief sought for in the IA. The petitioner therefore filed OP(DRT) No.453/2023 seeking to set aside Ext.P3 order dated 24.08.2023 in IA No.2614/2023 in SA No.66/2018.
8. In the OP(DRT), the petitioner contended that the notice of dispossession has been issued by the respondent without following the statutory requirements under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner had already filed a proposal for One Time Settlement. The petitioner requested the respondent to consider his case compassionately since he could not continue the work due to the fact that huge amount was payable to him by the Kerala Water Authority.
9. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition and OP(DRT). On behalf of the respondent, it is stated that there is no provision under the Kerala Stamp Act, 1969 pertaining to assignment of debts. What is transferred under Ext.P1 is only the debt along with right to
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 sugge....
The exemption from stamp duty for asset reconstruction agreements applies only under the Indian Stamp Act, not the Kerala Stamp Act, denying total exemption sought by the petitioners.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the stamp duty payable for the assignment of non-performing assets should be based on the consideration paid by the petitioner, and not on the....
The Assignment Deed was deemed valid despite the Appellant's objections, confirming the debt and default necessary for admitting the Financial Creditor's Section 7 application.
The court emphasized the necessity of providing notice to parties before adjudicating issues of stamp duty, affirming procedural fairness in the context of insufficiently stamped documents.
Registered Assignment Agreements may be relied upon in court proceedings even if inadequately stamped, reinforcing the rights of the assignee under SARFAESI Act provisions.
The assignment of debt under the SARFAESI Act is valid even if the document is inadequately stamped, as registered documents are presumed adequately stamped.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.