The sale value mentioned in the sale deeds executed by the Official Liquidator for properties purchased in Court Auction Sale cannot be questioned under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

M. Venugopal, J.

1. The Appellants/Respondents have preferred the instant W.A.Nos.1436 & 1437 of 2013 as against the common order, dated 08.01.2013, in W.P.Nos.29638 & 29799 of 2012 passed by the Learned Single Judge, in allowing the Writ Petitions.

2. The Appellants/Respondents have filed the present W.A.Nos. 1770 to 1773 of 2013, as against the common order dated 23.04.2013, in W.P.Nos.9258 to 9261 of 2013, passed by the Learned Single Judge, in allowing the Writ Petitions.

3. The Appellant has focussed the W.A.Nos.1921 & 1922 of 2013, as against the common order, dated 27.03.2013, in W.P.Nos.3756 & 3757 of 2013, passed by the Learned Single Judge, in directing the Respondent therein to consider the representations of the Petitioners dated 17.09.2012 and 04.10.2012 for refund of excess stamp duty and registration charges etc.

4. The Appellants have projected the present W.A.No.2026 of 2013, as against the order, dated 21.03.2013, in W.P.No.5264 of 2013, passed by the Learned Single Judge, in directing the Respondent therein to return the document in question.

5. According to the Learned Advocate General for the Appellants, the orders of the Learned Single Judges are contrary to law and facts of the case.

6. The Learned Advocate General for the Appellants submits that the sale price was fixed based on the 'Sealed Tenders', but this was not appreciated by the Learned Single Judges at the time of passing the impugned orders.

7. The Learned Advocate General for the Appellants forcefully contends that as per “Explanation” appended to Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, only the price that would have fetched if the property was sold in open market to be termed as its “Market Value”.

8. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Advocate General for the Appellants proceeds to submit that as per settled norm and principle, sale price arrived at on the basis of “Open Public auction” cannot be equated with the one fixed as a result of sealed tender and as such, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in V.N.Devadoss V. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Ins. and others, 2009 (3) LW 236, is not applicable to the facts of the present cases.

9. Expatiating his contention, the Learned Advocate General for the Appellants strenuously contends that the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision V.N.Devadoss V. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector General of Registration and others, reported in 2009 (3) LW 236 cannot be applied to the sale deed pertaining to these cases, because of the reason that the sale was made in pursuance of the order of BIFR based on the valuation made by the Assets Committee. However, in these cases, the sales were made by the Official Liquidator to the individuals based on Sealed Tender Auction.

10. That apart, the Learned Advocate General submits that the dictum laid by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court, in Government of Tamil Nadu V. S.Jayalakshmi, (2009) 5 MLJ 391 cannot be applied to the sale deeds related in the instant cases on hand, since in the case dealt with by the Hon'ble Division Bench, the sale deed was executed by the Police Housing Corporation in favour of the employees on the basis of the value fixed by Public Authority in Public Auction. However, in the present cases, the sales were made by the Official Liquidator to the individuals and on the basis of sealed tender auction.

11. The Learned Advocate General for the Appellants contends that the role of an Official Liquidator is that he is authorised to sell an immovable and movable property and auctionable claims of the company by public auction or private contract with power to transfer the whole thereof to any person or body corporate or to sell the same in parcels, in terms of Section 457 of the Companies Act, 1956. Also that, he is to appoint a valuer, chartered surveyers or chartered accountant to assess the value of the company's assets within 15 days after taking into custody of the property. Moreo