Bombay High Court
ROHSTOFFE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.versusTHE COLLECTOR, MUMBAI AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The State may charge a transfer premium, which must be calculated on the Auction Purchase Value (6% of that amount or Rs. 2,000 per sq ft, whichever is higher), and the Society’s common amenity fund charge is payable by the auction purchaser.
Summary
The Official Liquidator of Sonal Garments India Pvt. Ltd. sought to register the transfer of Office Unit No. 134‑A, sold at a Company Court‑monitored auction to Rohstoffe International Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 2.65 crore. The State of Maharashtra demanded a transfer premium calculated on the Ready Reckoner Value (Rs. 5.93 crore) under Section 37A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, while the purchaser argued that the premium should be based on the auction purchase price, which reflects the true market value. The Court examined the legislative framework, including the 2017 Government Resolution, the Market Value Rules, and precedents such as Bulchandani and Aspi Chinoy, concluding that the State is entitled to levy a premium but the valuation base must be the auction purchase price. The Court also held that the Society’s claim for a common amenity fund is valid and payable by the purchaser. Accordingly, the premium is to be recomputed at the higher of Rs. 2,000 per sq ft or 6% of the auction price, with any excess paid by the purchaser to be refunded with interest, and the common amenity fund amount is not refundable.
Issues considered
- Whether the State is entitled to charge a transfer premium on the transfer of an office unit situated on State‑leased land.
- On which valuation basis the premium under Section 37A should be computed – the Ready Reckoner Value or the Auction Purchase Value.
- Whether the Society’s claim for a common amenity fund is legitimate and whether it is payable by the auction purchaser or the Official Liquidator.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 163, 79-A, 91
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 — s. 295, 37A
- Maharashtra Stamp (Determination of True Market Value of Property) Rules, 1995 — s. Rule 4(6)
Subjects
- transfer premium
- Section 37A
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- Ready Reckoner Value
- Auction Purchase Value
- common amenity fund
- leasehold land
- Company Court
- liquidation
- valuation
- stamp duty
- market value
Judgment
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally
signed by
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CHAITANYA
CHAITANYA ASHOK
ASHOK JADHAV
JADHAV Date:
2026.09.30
15:58:39
+0530
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2173 OF 2019
IN
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR REPORT NO. 153 OF 2019
IN
COMPANY PETITION NO. 9 OF 2010
Rohstoffe International Pvt. Ltd. … Applicant
In the matter between:
The Official Liquidator of
M/s. Sonal Garments India Pvt. Ltd.
… Petitioner
Versus
The Collector, Mumbai & Ors. … Respondents
Mr. Vishal Kanade a/w Ms. Nidhi Singh, Ms. Nidhi Faganiya i/b
Vidhii Partners, for the Applicant.
Mr. Amar Mishra, A.G.P., for the Respondent No. 1 – State.
Mr. Mohit Khanna a/w Ms. Chhaya Parab, Ms. Meghna Mehta i/b
M/s. Shah & Sanghavi, for the Respondent No. 2 – Society.
Mr. Gaurav Aswani i/b Mr. Mutahhar Khan, for the Official
Liquidator.
CORAM: SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 2026
JUDGEMENT:
Context and Factual Background:
Page 1 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
1. The core controversy in the captioned proceedings is what the market
value should be in Company Court-monitored auctions of office units for the
State of Maharashtra to charge a premium on an ad valorem basis under
Section 37A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (“MLRC”) for
registration of the transfer where the office unit is in a building that stands on
land leased by the State to a premises society.
2. According to the State, the premium should be charged on market value
as set out on the annual statement of rates (“Ready Reckoner Value”)
notified under the Maharashtra Stamp (Determination of True Market Value
of Property) Rules, 1995 (“Market Value Rules”), ignoring the price
discovered in the auction process (“Auction Purchase Value”) because that
is the rate statutorily stipulated for purposes of computing transfer premium
under Section 37A of the MLRC.
3. According to the Applicant, Rohstoffe International Pvt. Ltd., which is
the auction purchaser (“Auction Purchaser”), the transfer premium should
be computed on the Auction Purchase Value and not the Ready Reckoner
Value, because that is the true market value and is identified as such even
under the law governing Stamp Duty.
4. Originally, the Auction Purchaser had questioned even the right of the
State to charge a premium on an individual unit in a building standing on
Page 2 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
leasehold land owned by the State. However, in the course of the hearing, it
became common ground that the State indeed has a right to charge a premium
to register a transfer of an office unit in a building erected on the State’s land
leased to a premises society. The only quarrel is on the computation of the
charge of transfer premium.
5. The captioned proceedings, Interim Application No. 2173 of 2019 (“IA
2173”) also entail a question about a charge of a contribution to a common
amenity fund imposed by the Mittal Court Premises Co-operative Society
Limited (“Society”) on the Auction Purchaser as the incoming member.
Whether such a charge may be imposed on an incoming member or whether it
should have been imposed on the outgoing member i.e. effectively, on the
liquidation estate is also a question to be answered.
6. The factual matrix relevant for the adjudication of this case may be
summarised thus:
A] Sonal Garments (India) Private Limited (“Company”) was
subjected to liquidation proceedings and winding up order was passed
on April 16, 2012;
B] As part of the liquidation proceedings, Office Unit No. 134-A
Mittal Court, Nariman Point, Mumbai, (“Office Unit”), an office in the
Society, was auctioned by the Official Liquidator under the oversight of
Page 3 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
the Company Court. The transfer of the Office Unit pursuant to the
auction was approved by an order dated October 10, 2018 passed by the
Company Court, for the Auction Purchase Value of Rs. 2,65,00,000/-;
C] Under a Government Resolution dated July 7, 2017 (“2017 GR”),
the transfer premium is to be computed at the higher of Rs. 2,000 per
square foot and the amount computed at a rate of 6% of the Ready
Reckoner Value, whichever is higher. Towards this end, on the basis of
the Ready Reckoner Value of Rs. 5,93,26,567/-, the premium has
claimed by the State as amounting to Rs. 35,59,600/- (rounded up);
D] The State also has claims about a past transfer of the Office Unit
and a past mortgage without State approval and the transfer premium
claimed on it is Rs. 3,69,100/-. On November 27, 2019, the State issued
a notice demanding Rs. 39,26,700 for issuance of a no-objection
certificate to recognise the transfer;
E] Upon the State refusing to effect registration of the transfer in
favour of the Auction Purchaser unless such transfer premium were
paid, IA 2173 was filed by the Auction Purchaser. By an order dated
July 27, 2020 (“Interim Order”), a Learned Single Judge set out an
ad interim working arrangement in IA 2173 for the Auction Purchaser to
be given a no-objection certificate by the State and by the Society. This
entailed the following actions, subject to the outcome in IA 2173:
Page 4 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
(i) The Auction Purchaser was directed to pay to the Collector
a sum of Rs. 35,59,600/- which is referable to the transfer
premium attributed by the State to the transfer in question
(leaving out the past transfer and the past mortgage), against
which the no-objection certificate would be issued by the State;
(ii) Since according to the Auction Purchaser, the amount
payable was only Rs. 15,90,000/-, which is 6% of the Auction
Purchase Value, the State would refund a sum of Rs. 19,69,600/-
to the Auction Purchaser, should the final decision go in favour of
the Auction Purchaser and against the State, along with interest at
6% per annum;
(iii) Likewise, the Auction Purchaser would pay to the Society a
sum of Rs. 6,39,920/- towards the Society’s claims, of which Rs.
3,92,515/- was payable towards the common amenity fund,
against which the Society would also issue its no-objection
certificate. If the Society were to fail and the Auction Purchaser
were to succeed in IA 2173, the amount of Rs. 3,92,515/- would
have to be refunded by the Society with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum; and
Page 5 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
(iv) Against issuance of these no-objection certificates, the
Official Liquidator and the Auction Purchaser were to execute a
conveyance; and
F] The aforesaid arrangement set out in the Interim Order was
implemented by the parties. By the time IA 2173 was heard finally, the
Auction Purchaser had sold the Office Unit onwards. The outcome in
this judgement would determine how much transfer premium is actually
payable, if at all, and whether the Auction Purchaser is entitled to the
refunds from the State and from the Society.
7. By consent of parties, IA 2173 was taken up for final hearing and
disposal. I have heard Mr. Vishal Kanade, Learned Advocate for the Auction
Purchaser, Mr. Amar Mishra, Learned Assistant Government Pleader, and Mr.
Mohit Khanna, Learned Advocate on behalf of the Society. None appeared for
the Official Liquidator throughout the hearing. With the assistance of the
advocates, I have examined the material on record.
Points for Determination:
8. The following points for determination arise in this Application:
A] Whether the State is entitled to charge a premium at all for
transfer of a unit in a building standing on State-owned leasehold land;
Page 6 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
B] What would be the value on which premium at the rate stipulated
in the 2017 GR should be computed – the Ready Reckoner Value or the
Auction Purchase Value; and
C] Is the Society’s claim for a common amenity fund legitimate and
whether such a charge is payable by the Auction Purchaser or by the
Official Liquidator.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
State’s Entitlement to Charge Premium:
9. Mr. Kanade had initially pitched the Auction Purchaser’s case on the
decision in Aspi Chinoy1, to contend that there is no basis at all for the State
to charge a transfer premium, importing from that case where premium was
sought to be charged for transfer of units in housing societies. However, after
Mr. Mishra pointed to the decision by a Learned Division Bench in
Bulchandani2, Mr. Kanade would concede that the State having a basis to
impose a charge is no longer in doubt.
1
Aspi Chinoy & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. – judgement dated September 29,
2009 in Writ Petition No. 713 of 2001; 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 2541; affirmed by the
Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Aspi Chinoy & Anr. by judgement dated
September 30, 2022 in Civil Appeal No. 5809 of 2011
2
State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Kamal R. Bulchandani & Anr. – judgement dated July 13,
2026 of a Learned Division Bench in Review Petition (L) No. 27315 of 2024 in Writ Petition
No. 1462 of 2019 with Contempt Petition No. 33 of 2023 – 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 8500
Page 7 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
10. The law declared in Bulchandani makes it clear that the introduction
of Section 37A in the MLRC with effect from March 3, 2015 was, in itself, a
legislative intervention to deal with the ruling in Aspi Chinoy and to provide
a statutory basis for premium to be charged for transfer of a unit in a building
owned by a Society standing on leasehold land. The 2017 GR stipulates the
applicable charging rate (6% of the Ready Reckoner Value) pursuant to the
power delegated to the State to issue orders stipulating the premium rate
under the provisions of Section 37A. Therefore, it was held that the power of
the State to charge a premium for such a transfer is no longer in doubt.
11. In fact, the judgement in Bulchandani was rendered in a Review
Petition to review an order that had disposed of a writ petition based on a
concession by the State’s advocate that Aspi Chinoy would cover the issue of
whether any transfer premium can at all be charged for transfer of an
individual office unit in a building standing on land leased by the State. The
Learned Division Bench reviewed the earlier order, and has provided a
detailed analysis of how, after the introduction of Section 37A of the MLRC,
Aspi Chinoy would no longer hold the field. It was held that Section 37A is
the basis of the charge, and the 2017 GR is the instrument issued pursuant to
the power conferred under Section 37A.
12. For completeness, Section 37A of the MLRC must be noticed and
analysed, and it reads thus:
Page 8 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
37A. Restrictions on sale, transfer, redevelopment, change of use, etc., in relation to
Government land and nazul land.—
(1) Every sale, transfer, redevelopment, use of additional Floor Space Index
(FSI), transfer of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) or change of use of any
Government land in Amravati and Nagpur Revenue Divisions, including the Mumbai
City and Mumbai Revenue Divisions in the State, which is granted for various
purposes under the provisions of this Code or the rules made thereunder or any law
relating to land revenue, before the commencement of this Code, including the nazul
lands in Amravati and Nagpur Revenue Divisions, shall be subject to taking the prior
permission of the State Government.
(2) The State Government shall, while granting such permission as required under
sub-section (1), recover such premium or charge and share of unearned income,
subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified, by general or special order,
issued by the Government, from time to time:
Provided that if the provisions of this section or any orders issued thereunder are
inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the order of land grant or lease deed
executed prior to the commencement of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (Second
Amendment) Act, 2012, the terms and conditions of such order of land grant or lease
deed shall prevail:
Provided further that in the case of nazul lands in Amravati and Nagpur Revenue
Divisions, the provisions of sub-section
(1) shall not apply with retrospective effect.
Explanation.— For the purposes of this section—
(a) "Government land" includes the Government land or part of such land, or any
building erected thereon, or any right, benefit or share arising out of or in relation to
such land or building; and
(b) *****
[Emphasis Supplied]
Page 9 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
13. As seen from the extract above, Section 37A(1) stipulates the need for
permission of the State for any sale or transfer of “Government land”. That
term is defined in the Explanation as including any right, benefit or share
arising out of any building erected on land of the Government. Therefore,
where land has been leased by the State to a Society, which has erected a
building on it, and unit in such building is being transferred, permission of the
State for such transfer would be necessary. Section 37A(2) provides for the
State to seek any premium or charge when approving such transfer. The 2017
GR sets out how the charge is to be computed and that instrument has been
held to be the general order of the State referred to in Section 37A(2).
14. Mr. Mishra would also point to Condition No. 19 in the instrument
dated April 25, 1974 granting lease of land by the State to the Society (“Lease
Grant”), which reads thus:
19. The lessee shall not assign or part with possession of the demised premises or
transfer the lessees’ interest therein without the previous consent in writing of the
lessor. The lessor will be at liberty to refuse such consent or grant it subject to such
conditions including a condition requiring payment of premium as the lessor may in
his absolute discretion think fit.
[Emphasis Supplied]
15. The submission is that there is nothing inconsistent in the Lease Grant
with Section 37A of the MLRC for the Lease Grant to prevail, and on the
contrary, Condition No. 19 is consistent with the position that the State may
Page 10 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
require payment of premium for any assignment of any interest of the lessee in
the property that is leased.
16. In a separate legislative intervention, while Section 37A(2) of the MLRC
provided for a conflict between Section 37A and conditions in the lease to be
resolved by giving primacy to the lease conditions, on August 22, 2016, a
proviso was inserted into Section 295 by the MLRC (Fourth Amendment) Act,
2016, to stipulate that permission of the State would be necessary for transfer
of leasehold rights regardless of the provisions in lease deeds. This brought
uniformity into lease deeds across the board. Section 3 of this Amendment
Act also validated all past premia charged by the State since inception, thereby
invalidating any litigation for refund of such premia on the premise that until
such amendment there was no power to charge any premium.
17. In Bulchandani, the Learned Division Bench noted that the
constitutional validity of both provisions had been considered and upheld by
another Learned Division Bench in Hindustan Unilever3, with the
reconciliation that the State could not initiate fresh action to claim premium in
cases that were already covered by the primacy granted to lease deeds by
Section 37A(2), and held that future transfers after the introduction of Section
295 would be validly covered by the proviso to Section 295 and not by the
3
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra – judgement dated May 3, 2018 in
a bunch of Writ Petitions led by Writ Petition (L) No. 122 of 2018 – (2018) SCC OnLine Bom
930
Page 11 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
primacy given to lease conditions under Section 37A(2). Applying these two
provisions, it was emphatically endorsed in Bulchandani that transfer of
office units in a premises society would be chargeable with premium.
18. Suffice it to say, for purposes of this Application, Mr. Mishra’s
submission that every member of a Society has an interest and share in the
Society and its building erected on land leased by the State to the Society, is
squarely covered by Bulchandani. Transfer of such share in the Society in
relation to transfer of an office unit in the Society’s building attracts the
statutory charge of premium under Section 37A of the MLRC read with the
2017 GR. The Learned Division Bench examined Aspi Chinoy and applied
Hindustan Unilever to it, and clearly set out the implications of how the
law had moved.
19. Therefore, it is clear that there is no scope left for making any
submissions on the basis of Aspi Chinoy to question the power to charge a
premium on the transfer of the Office Unit, even if the transfer is pursuant to a
Company Court-approved auction. The Auction Purchaser too has no quarrel
now with conceding that the law declared in Bulchandani firmly applies to
this case. Therefore, to avoid prolixity, copious extraction of all that the
Learned Division Bench has said, which in any case binds this Single Bench, is
not necessary.
Page 12 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
Ready Reckoner Value vs. Auction Purchase Value:
20. This takes me to the issue of how the premium or the charge for
permitting a transfer of the Office Unit under Section 37A of the MLRC is to be
computed. It is common ground that the premium charge stipulated in the
2017 GR for commercial or industrial units is the higher of the amount
computed at Rs. 2,000 per square foot, and 6% of the market value in terms of
the annual statement or rates under the Stamp Act. Certain other Government
Resolutions are also invoked for past transfers of interest for which premiums
are sought to be collected from the Auction Purchaser. However, for purposes
of adjudicating IA 2173, there is consensus that the core question to be
answered is only about the premium chargeable for the transfer arising out of
the auction conducted under the oversight of the Company Court.
21. As stated earlier, the core dispute in this case is about the base on which
the 6% rate should be applied – the Ready Reckoner Value of Rs. ~5.93 crores
or the Auction Purchase Value of Rs. 2.65 crores. If it is held that the 6%
charge should be applied on the Auction Purchase Value, and such amount is
lower than the charge on the basis of charging Rs. 2,000 per square foot, then
the latter would need to be applied. If it is held that the 6% charge is to be
applied on the Ready Reckoner Value, then no intervention would be
necessary while disposing of IA 2173.
Page 13 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
22. Mr. Kanade would submit that it is the Auction Purchase Value that
demonstrates the real market value for the Office Unit in particular. Price
discovery has taken place specifically factoring in the peculiarities of the
property, he would submit, to invoke the ruling of a Learned Division Bench in
Pinak Bharat4 to submit that the Auction Purchase Value is conclusive for
all statutory purposes. He would also rely on Bharat Bijlee5 to contend that
a statutory sale certificate is conclusive and that binds every authority
thereafter dealing with the property. He would submit that it would be absurd
for two different values being adopted as the market value for the same
transaction. Mr. Kanade would also allude to the judgement of a Learned
Single Judge of the Company Court, as upheld by the Learned Division Bench,
in Transpower6 to point to the fact that the Company Court can conclusively
decide the issue on the same lines as it had in that case.
23. In contrast, Mr. Mishra would submit that the Collector is not at all
second-guessing the Auction Purchase Value to invoke Bharat Bijlee and
Pinak Bharat. He submits that the Auction Purchase Value is irrelevant
4
The Collector of Stamps, Mumbai City Vs. Pinak Bharat & Co. & Ors. – Judgement dated
March 17, 2025 in Commercial Appeal No. 14 of 2024 with Commercial Appeal (L) No.
28626 of 2023 by a Learned Division Bench; 2025:BHC-OS:4598-DB
5
Bharat Bijlee Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. – judgement of a Learned Single Judge
dated August 28, 2002 in Writ Petition No. 1512 of 1998; 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 1315 :
(2003) 105 (1) Bom LR 133
6
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Transpower Engineering Ltd. –
Judgement of the Learned Single Bench dated July 26, 2018 in Official Liquidator Report
No. 466 of 2016 in Company Petition No. 606 of 1998 filed by Metal Tubes and Rolling
Mills, upheld by the Learned Division Bench by judgement dated December 9, 2025 in
Appeal (L) No. 533 of 2018
Page 14 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
because the statutory charge under the MLRC is specifically set out in the 2017
GR and all that the Collector is doing is compute the transfer premium in
compliance with the requirement. Mr. Mishra would submit that the charge of
premium by the State is a statutory first charge under Section 37A and Section
295 of the MLRC. Mr. Mishra would contend that the Auction Purchaser
cannot expect to be treated as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice,
because the charge under Section 37A of the MLRC applicable to the Office
Unit (which is government land) is a statutory encumbrance, of which there
was full notice to the world at large. Citing the meanings set out in the Black’s
Law Dictionary (10th Ed., 2014), Mr. Mishra would contend that a charge is
an encumbrance arising by operation of law, running with the property in
question, which requires no assent. On the other hand, a premium is a
consensual consideration for forbearance or permission, conditional upon the
lessor’s assent.
24. Mr. Mishra would submit that Transpower has no relevance to this
case, and if at all, supports the State’s position. The State’s claim for premium
is statutory under Section 37A of the MLRC unlike a contractual term applied
by MIDC in Transpower. Mr. Mishra would also rely on the terms and
conditions for the auction, which put the auction purchasers to notice about
the risk of pre-existing encumbrances. Reliance is placed on Clause 18 (“as is
where is and whatever there is” purchase), Clause 14 (earlier outgoings to be
Page 15 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
paid from the sale proceeds, which presupposes their existence) and Clause 12
(purchaser’s liability for taxes and charges from the date of sale
confirmation). The Auction Purchaser took only such title as the Company
had, which was already a title burdened by Condition 19 of the Lease Grant,
which then became a statutory first charge under Section 37A and Section 295
of the MLRC, and the instruments indicating the computation of charge.
25. Mr. Mishra would contend that Pinak Bharat does not decide
anything either about statutory charge of premium under the MLRC being
wiped out in a Court-monitored auction or about the Collector being bound by
the auction price in computing transfer premium. On Bharat Bijlee, Mr.
Mishra would submit that the decision is confined to Stamp Duty valuation
under the Market Value Rules and can have no application to transfer
premium under the MLRC. Mr. Mishra would also contend that the two
statutory regimes under MLRC and the Stamp Act deal with different
legislative policy objectives and valuation methodologies. The proposition
that a statutory auction price is conclusive would operate only under Rule 4(6)
of the Market Value Rules which codifies such principle, and cannot displace
the 2017 GR, which is also a statutory instrument under Section 37A of the
MLRC.
26. The seminal question that one has to answer in adjudicating IA 2173 is
whether the valuation referred to in the Market Value Rules under the Stamp
Page 16 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
Act and the valuation referred to in GR 2017 read with Section 37A of the
MLRC stand in different spheres, subserving different legislative objectives,
and therefore can be distinct and separate in their own assessments of market
value.
27. At first blush, both these being fiscal provisions, it appears logical to
have a literal reading of each provision in its respective context and apply the
formula as provided. However, one cannot forget that the MLRC framework
has consciously chosen the Stamp Duty framework for arriving at the market
value for computation of the premium amount. The question to ask therefore,
is whether the special framework within the Stamp Duty framework to treat a
value arrived at by an authority for purposes of Stamp Duty, can be ignored for
purposes of computing transfer premium under the MLRC.
28. It is also noteworthy that each of Bulchandani and Hindustan
Unilever was rendered in the case of a voluntary transfer between two living
entities and neither entailed a case of a transfer caused in the course of a
liquidation process. Likewise, the law declared in Bharat Bijlee and Pinak
Bharat too is not dispositive of what is applicable under the MLRC since they
did not entail a similar situation where price discovery took place pursuant to
an auction in a liquidation. Therefore, the question that is still at large is
whether the value attributed to any piece of “government land” (and this
would include an office unit in a premises society in a building standing on
Page 17 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
government-owned leasehold land) can be different for purposes of the Stamp
Act and the MLRC.
29. At this juncture, Rule 4(6) of the Market Value Rules must be noticed
and it reads thus:
4. Annual statement of rates of immoveable property
(1) to (5) *****
(6) Every registering officer shall, when the instrument is produced before him for
registration, verify in each case the market value of land and buildings, etc., as the
case may be, determined in accordance with the above statement and Valuation
Guidelines issued from time to time and if he finds the market value as stated in the
instrument, less than the market value, determined as above, he shall refer the same
to the Collector of the District for determination of the true market value of the
property which is the subject matter of the instrument and the proper duty payable
thereon:
Provided that, if a property is sold or allotted by Government or Semi
Government body or a Government Undertaking or a Local Authority on the basis of
the predetermined price, then value determined by said bodies, shall be the true
market value of the subject matter property.
Provided further that, where the property is purchased or acquired or taken
over by the Government, Semi-Government Body or a Government Undertaking or
Local Authority, then the actual value determined as consideration by the said bodies
as mentioned in the deed, shall be considered to be the true market value of the
subject matter property.
Provided also that where the market value has been stated in accordance with
or more than that prescribed in the statement issued by the Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority, but the Registering Officer has reason to believe that the true valuation of
the immoveable property cannot be arrived at without having recourse to local
Page 18 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
enquiry or extraneous evidence he may, before registering such instrument, refer the
same to the Collector of the District for determination of true market value of
property and the proper duty payable thereon.
[Emphasis Supplied]
30. Rule 4(6) clearly has as its stated objective, the discovery of the “true
market value”. The first proviso squarely provides that where a property is
sold by an authority at a predetermined price, or where the price is
determined by an authority, such value is the true market value of the property
transacted in the instrument that is meant to be stamped.
31. Indeed, each legislation subserves a different legislative objective. The
Stamp Act provides for the State imposing a duty to be paid to ensure an
instrument is admissible as evidence of the transaction documented in such
instrument. The MLRC provides for the State charging a premium to be paid
to ensure that the State recognises the transferred interest in government
land. However, it is quite clear that in subserving the policy objective of
Section 37A of the MLRC, the 2017 GR has, in its wisdom, felt that the best
barometer of value would be the Ready Reckoner Value, which is nothing but a
value provided for in the annual statement of rates under the Stamp Duty law.
The annual statement of rates, popularly called the ‘Ready Reckoner’ is a
statement drawn up under the Market Value Rules, which is subordinate law
under the Stamp Act. Therefore, the distinction sought to be drawn between
the two does not make any difference since consciously, the MLRC framework
Page 19 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
adopts the Stamp Duty framework. The annual statement of rates is meant to
be a tool to arrive at the true value of the property in question, and the nuance
introduced in Rule 4(6) of the Market Value Rules cannot be wished away.
The annual statement of rates is itself a product of factoring in the history of
multiple comparable transactions.
32. Therefore, it is a conscious choice by the State through its
instrumentality of the 2017 GR that the value on which the premium must be
computed on an ad valorem basis is the Ready Reckoner Value. The Market
Value Rules constitute subordinate legislation under the Stamp Act, tabled in
the Legislature, and is an integral part of the Stamp Act. The policy
underlying Rule 4(6) of the Market Value Rules is clearly that where the value
is determined by an authority, such value would be the value involved for
stamping purposes as well. The State in its capacity as a delegated authority
under the Stamp Act has, in its wisdom, sought to adopt a rational meaningful
and coherent approach of treating price discovered and approved by an
authority to be the value for purposes of the Stamp Act and the Market Value
Rules.
33. Evidently, the policy position is that Stamp Duty should be paid as a
percentage of the true market value as stipulated in the various Articles in the
Schedule to the Stamp Act. Where such value is discovered and finalised by an
authority, such value is considered to be a sufficient and valid barometer of
Page 20 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
market value. Therefore, when the State has consciously adopted the annual
statement of rates as indicative of the value for purposes of Stamp Duty, the
State has incorporated, by reference, the framework governing valuation for
Stamp Duty purposes. Therefore, it stands to plain logic, reason and common
sense to hold that the policy objective underlying the computation of premium
under MLRC is aligned with the policy objective underlying the computation
of Stamp Duty under the Stamp Act, by the 2017 GR incorporating the
framework under the Market Value Rules.
34. Indeed, the proviso to Rule 4(6) of the Market Value Rules codifies such
reliance on the value determined by an authority as the true market value, and
such a codified proviso is missing in the 2017 GR. This is why it is necessary to
squarely deal with such silence in the 2017 GR. While the 2017 GR is indeed a
statutory instrument since it draws its source of power from Section 37A of the
MLRC, it is still a policy instrument of the State while the Market Value Rules
constitute subordinate legislation, and the underlying policy position
contained in it stands on a higher pedestal. Since the policy underlying the
2017 GR adopts from the subordinate legislation under the Stamp Act, it is
quite logical and rational to fill the silence on this front in the 2017 GR to
prevent the manifest absurdity of two provisions adopting materially different
values for the same property despite one provision incorporating the other by
reference. The absurdity of any different view would be manifested in the
Page 21 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
same Office Unit being considered to be worth Rs. 2.65 crores for computing
Stamp Duty and to also be worth Rs. ~5.93 crores for transfer premium under
the MLRC despite the MLRC having chosen to adopt the Stamp Duty
framework’s Ready Reckoner. Such absurdity would not at all arise if the
displacement of the Ready Reckoner Value under the proviso to Rule 4(6) of
the Market Value Rules by adoption of the Auction Purchase Value to compute
Stamp Duty, is also applied to the computation of the transfer premium.
35. The Supreme Court has provided guidance on how silences in the law
must be filled by resort to common sense in the case of Chatha7, where it
dealt with the sudden imposition of 200% customs duty on imports from
Pakistan on February 16, 2019 after a terror attack in Pulwama, Kashmir. The
Supreme Court had to rule on how to draw the line on the basis of which
imports already made before such imposition of enhanced Customs Duty
would be covered by the unamended regime and when one could consider the
amended regime to take effect. The Customs Duty enhancement notification
was uploaded at 20:46:58 hours on February 16, 2019 and it was silent on the
time of day when it would take effect. Since the notification would otherwise
be effective on the date and not the time on that date, importers of rice who
had demonstrated through the electronic records of bills of entry that the rice
7
Union of India & Ors. Vs. M/s. G.S. Chatha Rice Mills & Anr. – judgement dated September
23, 2020 in Civil Appeal No. 3249 of 2020; 2020 INSC 561
Page 22 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
had entered prior to the issuance of the notification, would also have had to
pay import duty with retrospective all-day application.
36. The silence in the notification was filled by the Supreme Court
disallowing retrospective application in the course of the day on February 16,
2019 prior to the notification being issued, taking note of digital time stamps
to indicate point of entry of the imports. The following extracts are
noteworthy:
35. Mr Natraj is textually right when he emphasizes that Section 15 (1) contains a
reference to date and not time. But there are two responses to his line of approaching the
issue. First, the legislature does not always say everything on the subject. When it enacts
a law, every conceivable eventuality which may arise in the future may not be present to
the mind of the lawmaker. Legislative silences create spaces for creativity. Between
interstices of legislative spaces and silences, the law is shaped by the robust application
of common sense. Second, regulatory governance is evolving in India as new technology
replaces old and outmoded ways of functioning. The virtual world of electronic filings
was not on the horizon when Parliament enacted the Customs Act in 1962. Yet the
Parliament has responded to the rapid changes which have been brought about by the
adoption of technology in governance. In the provisions of Section 17 and Section 46, the
impact of ICT-based governance has been recognized by the legislature in providing for
the presentation of bills of entry in the electronic form on the customs automated EDI
system. Precision, transparency and seamless administration are key features of a system
which adopts technology in pursuit of efficiency. As we will explore in greater detail later
in this judgment, technology has enabled both administrators and citizens to know
precisely when an electronic record is uploaded. The considerations which Parliament
had in its view in providing for crucial amendments to the statutory scheme by moving
from manual to electronic forms of governance in the assessment of duties must not be
ignored. Tax administration must leave behind the culture of an age in which the
Page 23 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
assessment of duty was wrought with delays, discretion, doubt and sometimes, the
dubious. The interpretation of the court must aid in establishing a system which ensures
certainty for citizens, ease of application and efficiency of administration.
[Emphasis Supplied]
37. Applying the same logic and rationale, Mr. Mishra is textually right but
this leads to the absurdity of the same transaction being treated as having two
different values under two laws, despite one having adopted the other for
determination of market value. I am satisfied that best way to fill the silence
in the 2017 GR is to reconcile it with the policy approach to valuation under
Rule 4(6) of the Market Value Rules. Much akin to the reference by the
Supreme Court to Parliament having resorted to electronic data interchange in
administration of Customs Duty, a reference must be made to the 2017 GR
having streamlined the computation of transfer premium under the MLRC by
incorporating the annual statement of rates under the Market Value Rules
made under the Stamp Act. Every conceivable eventuality can indeed not have
been foreseen in the 2017 GR, and akin to the Customs Duty notification, there
is a silence in the 2017 GR about true market value discovered in a Court-
monitored auction.
38. That silence has to be filled by robust application of common sense,
such that there is certainty, ease of administration and predictability for those
affected by the law. The reasoning in Chatha appeals to me for application in
the situation at hand to bring home a robust commonsensical approach to
Page 24 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
ensure that two parallel frameworks to determine market value, work in
tandem and in locked step with each other by conscious policy choice, so that
despite intended alignment, the two frameworks do not result in materially
misaligned values being imposed.
39. While one may emphasise and underline the difference between the
Stamp Act and the MLRC, both being fiscal and therefore amenable to literal
interpretation, since the 2017 GR, for purposes of Section 37A of the MLRC,
has consciously adopted the framework governing determination of market
value under the Market Value Rules made under the Stamp Act, there is
nothing irrational or perverse in effecting the intended policy alignment
between the two. It is the contrary approach that would lead to an irrational
and illogical absurdity by holding that the market value for the same
transaction can vary by 123% – the difference between the Auction Purchase
Value and the Ready Reckoner value as a percentage of the Auction Purchase
Value. The Ready Reckoner Value is not a value cast in stone under the Stamp
Act and its displacement, for good reason, must flow into its displacement for
MLRC purposes too. An indicative and notional Ready Reckoner Value
ignoring a real Company Court-approved valuation cannot be a rational basis
of computing transfer premium, ignoring that the very metric that the MLRC
framework consciously adopted is the Stamp Duty framework, which treats
the Auction Purchase Value as the real market value.
Page 25 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
40. Therefore, while one cannot quarrel about the fact that Bharat Bijlee
and Pinak Bharat had nothing to do with MLRC, there can be no quarrel
about the fact that these decisions are strong pointers to how true market
value must operate when an authority determines the market value. The
rationale and logic in these judgements about the true market value for
purposes of computing Stamp Duty would hold the torch for determination of
true market value for purpose of computing transfer premium as well.
41. In Transpower, the Learned Single Judge had held that the Company
Court is the competent court with jurisdiction to decide whether the
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (“MIDC”) is entitled to
claim differential premium and extension charges, and that in a sale of
leasehold rights approved by the Company Court, the transfer is an
involuntary sale and therefore, no differential premium is payable, with only
standard transfer charges being payable. As regards extension charges, it was
held that the MIDC may lodge a claim with the Official Liquidator. The
Learned Division Bench dismissed an appeal to hold that a sale in the course
of winding up, under oversight of the Company Court is an involuntary
transfer, attracting only standard transfer charges and not the differential
premium. The Supreme Court has not entertained a special leave petition.
42. Mr. Mishra is right in his submission that the transfer premium is a
statutory charge payable under Section 37A as opposed to MIDC’s charges
Page 26 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
flowing from a provision of contract. Likewise, in Transpower, standard
transfer charges were actually upheld even where the transfer was held to be
an involuntary transfer. Therefore, despite not being a transaction between
two solvent and willing parties striking a bargain for transfer of leasehold
rights, the transfer premium is to be treated as a standard charge for
recognising the transfer. However, the issue at hand is not about whether the
premium may be charged but the manner in which the premium has to be
computed, having recognised that the premium is chargeable. It is the gap
between the Stamp Duty law adopted by the 2017 GR and the contents of the
2017 GR itself that needs reconciliation to make it logical, rational and
sensible.
43. It is in that context that price discovery by an auction process overseen
by the Company Court, cannot be wished away as meaningless for
computation of transfer premium and that too under the 2017 GR which itself
adopts the Ready Reckoner, an instrument of Stamp Duty law. It is in this
light that the adoption of value from the Sale Certificate issued by the Income-
tax authorities by the Learned Single Judge in Bharat Bijlee and the
adoption of the sanctity of a Court-monitored auction with due deference
being given to it, as was done by the Learned Division Bench in Pinak
Bharat, resonates with me to give the real policy intent underlying the 2017
GR a full flow. The observation of the Learned Division Bench in Hindustan
Page 27 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
Unilever, which upheld the constitutional validity of Section 37A and Section
295 of the MLRC and contains a clear pointer, also resonates with me. The
following extract is noteworthy:
The quantification would be at such rate as may be specified by the Government by
an order from time to time. If that order imposes onerous, excessive, unreasonable
and unfair conditions unmindful of the market realities, then, depending upon other
factors, such order can be challenged independent of the provision being held to be
constitutional, legal and valid.
[Emphasis Supplied]
44. The approach of applying the 2017 GR to charge a transfer premium on
the basis of a notional market value as obtained from the Ready Reckoner
Value; ignoring the real market value that is blessed by the Company Court;
ignoring that the very Market Value Rules require such Court-approved value
to be adopted; and also ignoring that for Stamp Duty, the very same Auction
Purchase Value has been the basis of payment of Stamp Duty, presents an
onerous, excessive and unreasonable position that has led to IA 2173 being
filed invoking the power of the Company Court to determine questions of law
in the course of liquidation proceedings.
45. For the reasons set out above, I have no hesitation in answering the
question of law by holding that in the case of Company Court-approved sale of
interest in government land at a price discovered through a Company Court-
overseen auction, the price approved by the Company Court by reference to
Page 28 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
the proviso to Rule 4(6) of the Market Value Rules would be the value on
which the element of 6% charge under the 2017 GR should be applied. Indeed,
the working of the formula to apply the higher of the per square foot charge or
the aforesaid charge would need to run its course.
46. I am conscious of the reference to the difference between the two values
in the Interim Order but that was an ad interim arrangement. The formula as
set out in the 2017 GR should be applied and the transfer premium must be
computed in terms of the law declared in this judgement and the amount
deposited that is in excess of such computation must be refunded to the
Auction Purchaser along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of deposit until the date of actual payment, which must be made within
eight weeks from the upload of this judgement on the Court’s website.
47. Before parting with this point, I must also mention that the sanctity of a
Court-approved auction has been subject matter of judicial endorsement in
multiple judgements. The following passages from the observations of a three-
judge larger bench of the Supreme Court in ASL Vyapar8, in a case dealing
with exercise of powers of the Stamp Duty authorities in West Bengal to
reopen adjudication of market value on the ground of undervaluation in the
case of a Court-approved auction price, are instructive:
8
Registrar of Assurances and Anr. Vs. ASL Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – (2024) 17 SCC 572
Page 29 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
24. On the conspectus of the matter, we have not the slightest hesitation in
upholding the view that the provision of Section 47-A of the Act cannot be said to
have any application to a public auction carried out through court process/Receiver
as that is the most transparent manner of obtaining the correct market value of the
property.
25. It is no doubt true that in a court auction, the price obtainable may be slightly
less as any bidder has to take care of a scenario where the auction may be challenged
which could result in passage of time in obtaining perfection of title, with also the
possibility of it being overturned. But then that is a price obtainable as a result of the
process by which the property has to be disposed of. We cannot lose sight of the very
objective of the introduction of the section whether under the West Bengal Amendment
Act or in any other State i.e. that in case of undervaluation of property, an aspect not
uncommon in our country, where consideration may be passing through two modes -
one the declared price and the other undeclared component, the State should not be
deprived of the revenue. Such transactions do not reflect the correct price in the
document as something more has been paid through a different method. The objective
is to take care of such a scenario so that the State revenue is not affected and the
price actually obtainable in a free market should be capable of being stamped. If one
may say, it is, in fact, a reflection on the manner in which the transfer of an
immovable property takes place as the price obtainable in a transparent manner
would be different. An auction of a property is possibly one of the most transparent
methods by which the property can be sold. Thus, to say that even in a court
monitored auction, the Registering Authority would have a say on what is the market
price, would amount to the Registering Authority sitting in appeal over the decision of
the court permitting sale at a particular price.
26. It is not as if a public auction is carried out just like that. The necessary
prerequisites require fixation of a minimum price and other aspects to be taken care
of so that the bidding process is transparent. Even after the bidding process is
completed the court has a right to cancel the bid and such bids are subject to
confirmation by the court. Once the court is satisfied that the bid price is the
Page 30 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
appropriate price on the basis of the material before it and gives its imprimatur to it,
any interference by the Registering Authority on the aspect of price of transaction
would be wholly unjustified.
[Emphasis Supplied]
48. Indeed, ASL Vyapar was a case of dealing with a provision that
enabled re-opening of an adjudicated value while in the instant case the State
is merely applying the letter of the provisions in the 2017 GR by adopting the
Ready Reckoner Value, without conducting any adjudication of its own.
However, the principles of price discovery in a Court-approved auction and
the inappropriateness of revisiting it, as articulated in the decision would also
give a ringing endorsement to why the Auction Purchase Value is the true
market value, making it all the more unreasonable to ignore it and adopt the
Ready Reckoner Value for computing transfer premium in the very same
transaction where Stamp Duty is computed on the basis of the Auction
Purchase Price.
Society’s Claim – Common Amenity Fund:
49. As regards, the Society’s claim, Mr. Khanna would submit that the
charges raised by the Society and pursued with the Official Liquidator have
been rightly applied. Mr. Khanna would place his core reliance for the
common amenity fund on Bye Law D.3.5 of the Society’s Bye-laws, which
reads thus:
Page 31 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
"A member desiring to sell his / her flat shall contribute to the society for common
amenity fund sum or sums as may be prescribed by the Managing Committee from
time to time for offices/showrooms/godowns etc., according to their area subject to
ratification by the general body meeting.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
50. Mr. Khanna would submit that a resolution with the rates stipulated has
been approved by the general body of the Society on November 11, 1994. Mr.
Khanna would also allude to the decisions in Venkatesh Premises9 and
Mittal Court10 (another case of the very same Society) to indicate that the
Supreme Court and this Court have considered and upheld the validity of a
common amenity fund in the case of societies. Any dispute over the same, Mr.
Khanna would submit falls in the jurisdiction of the Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960 (“MCS Act”), in reliance upon Section 91 and Section 163
of that legislation and exclusively in the forums created under that law.
Therefore, he would submit that where there is an inherent positive ouster of
jurisdiction, it cannot be conferred even by consent of the parties, and towards
this end, he would rely on Chiranjilal Goenka11.
51. Mr. Kanade would submit that the Society did not raise the common
amenity fund issue at all before the Official Liquidator and has presented the
9
Income Tax Officer, Mumbai Vs. Venkatesh Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. – (2018) 15
SCC 37 – Paragraphs 19 and 20
10
Mittal Court Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer – 2009 SCC
OnLine Bom 2205 – Paragraphs 5 and 8
11
Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (Deceased) through LRs Vs. Jasjit Singh & Ors. – (1993) 2
SCC 507 – Paragraphs 17 and 18
Page 32 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
Auction Purchaser with this demand after confirmation of the sale. Mr.
Khanna would counter on the premise that the terms and conditions of the
auction clearly stipulate such a devolution of liability for the periods before
and after the confirmation of sale.
52. Mr. Kanade would also submit that only transfer charges may be sought
by the Society and a specific notification has been made on August 9, 2001
under Section 79-A of the MCS Act (“2001 Notification”) and anything
falling outside its scope should not be permissible. The common amenity fund
is without basis, he would submit and ought not to have been charged.
53. The Interim Order provided that the Auction Purchaser would pay to the
Society a sum of Rs. 6,39,920/- towards the Society’s claims, of which Rs.
3,92,515/- was payable towards the common amenity fund, against which the
Society would also issue its no-objection certificate. Depending on the
outcome in IA 2173, the amount of Rs. 3,92,515/-, attributable to the common
amenity fund would have to be refunded or retained by the Society with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
54. Clause 14 of the Terms and Conditions governing the auction provides
that the purchaser shall be liable to pay taxes, charges, fees and outgoings
applicable from the date of confirmation of sale in the purchaser’s favour while
earlier dues under these heads would be payable from the sale proceeds.
Page 33 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
Therefore, Mr. Khanna would submit that the claims for the earlier dues had
been raised and have been paid by the Official Liquidator and it is only the
common amenity fund that is in issue now. Even if this Court were to arrive at
a view that the Auction Purchaser should not be made to pay it, then, the
Society would need to be paid the same from the pool with the Official
Liquidator, he would submit, without prejudice to his contention that Clause
14 is quite clear in its terms.
55. The resolution adopting the rates are part of the record and there is no
dispute between the parties on the computation of the amount involved. The
key issue to be determined is whether the payment sought by the Society is
payable by the Auction Purchaser.
56. I have examined the judgement in Venkatesh Premises and indeed
as contended by Mr. Khanna, the Supreme Court has in the context of
examining whether receipt of amounts towards a common amenity fund is a
capital receipt or a revenue receipt, noted the purposes for which such a fund
is collected – for meeting sudden and regular heavy repairs to ensure
continuous hazard-free maintenance of properties and common infrastructure
which would lead to the benefit the members. The Supreme Court noted that
such charges are based on the bye-laws read with resolutions passed by the
Society. As regards the 2001 Notification, the Supreme Court has held that it
Page 34 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
applies to housing societies and not to premises societies and no fault can be
found with charging and collecting amounts towards a common amenity fund.
57. The dispensation implemented by the Society is consistent with such
position, and there can be no quarrel about the legality of the demand for the
common amenity fund. Such a position in law coupled with the valid creation
of a framework by the Society, read with Clause 14 of the Terms and
Conditions governing the auction sale by the Official Liquidator makes it clear
to me that no fault can be found with the Society’s contentions.
58. Indeed, the Auction Purchaser was put to terms that payment of
outgoings to the Society after confirmation of the sale would have to be borne
by the Auction Purchaser. This cannot be foisted on the sale proceeds. The
past dues have been adjudicated and paid. To the extent the Auction
Purchaser has paid anything in excess of the common amenity fund towards
past dues that may still have been retained with the Society, such amount
must be returned to the Auction Purchaser with interest at 6% per annum.
Should the Society have received such amount from the Official Liquidator
upon adjudication of its claims leading to a refund of such amount to the
Official Liquidator, the latter shall pay such component over to the Auction
Purchaser with interest at 6% per annum. It is made clear that there shall be
no refund of the amount of Rs. 3,92,515/- towards the common amenity fund
by the Society to the Auction Purchaser.
Page 35 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
59. In the facts of this case, it is not necessary to decide how to reconcile the
Company Court’s specific power to answer questions of law in the course of
liquidation with the ouster of jurisdiction as contended by Mr. Khanna. Suffice
it to say that IA 2173 seeks answers to questions of law that arise in the course
of liquidation proceedings and is not some independent dispute resolution
proceedings calling for adjudication of a private or bilateral dispute. The
manner of payment from the liquidation has in rem implications. Without
further comment on the question, the answering of which is unnecessary in
the factual matrix of this case, IA 2173 insofar as it relates to the amounts
deposited with the Society under the Interim Order is disposed of as above.
Summary of Conclusions and Directions:
60. In the premises, the conclusions and directions in this judgement may
be summarised thus:
A] The State is entitled to charge transfer premium for the transfer of
the Office Unit, which is transfer of an interest in Government land. The
law declared in Bulchandani concludes the issue and Aspi Chinoy
no longer holds the field;
B] Where the price has been discovered in an auction conducted
under the oversight of the Company Court and approved by it, the value
Page 36 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
on which the 6% element of the 2017 GR is to be applied is the Auction
Purchase Value (in this case, Rs. 2,65,00,000/-) and not the Ready
Reckoner Value (in this case, Rs. 5,93,26,567/-);
C] The silence in the 2017 GR as to an equivalent of the proviso to
Rule 4(6) of the Market Value Rules, must be filled by the
commonsensical adoption of the policy underlying the proviso to Rule
4(6) since the Stamp Duty valuation framework is what the 2017 GR has
itself adopted;
D] The transfer premium shall be recomputed on that basis, applying
the formula in the 2017 GR – the higher of Rs. 2,000 per square foot
and 6% of the Auction Purchase Value. The amount deposited by the
Auction Purchaser in excess (if any) of the transfer premium so
computed shall be refunded by the State with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date of deposit until the date of actual payment.
Such payment shall be made within eight weeks from the upload of this
judgement on this Court’s website;
E] The Society’s claim towards the common amenity fund of Rs.
3,92,515/- is legitimate and is payable by the Auction Purchaser, being
an outgoing falling after the date of confirmation of sale under Clause 14
of the Terms and Conditions of the auction, read with Bye Law D.3.5
Page 37 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Judgement-IA-2173-2019-F.docx
and the resolution of the general body dated November 11, 1994. There
shall be no refund of that amount; and
F] Any amount paid by the Auction Purchaser in excess, towards
past dues of the Society already discharged out of the sale proceeds,
shall be refunded with interest at the rate of 6% per annum by the
Society, or as the case may be, by the Official Liquidator within a period
of eight weeks from the upload of this judgement on the Court’s website.
61. IA 2173 is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
62. The Official Liquidator’s adjudication of February 17, 2023, which
admitted Rs. 3,69,100/- for the past charges for transfer and mortgage and
rejected the charge of Rs. 35,59,600/- for the transfer pursuant to the auction,
is subject matter of Interim Application (L) No. 38937 and Interim
Application (L) No. 39608 of 2024 filed by the State. Since those Interim
Applications have not been listed, only IA 2173 is disposed of by this
judgement. The aforesaid Interim Applications are listed under the caption
‘For Directions’ on October 8, 2026.
63. All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order shall be taken
upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court’s website.
[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]
Page 38 of 38
September 30, 2026
Chaitanya
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.