Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Ramesh Mishrimal Jain vs Avinash Vishwanath Patne on 18 November, 2020

Bench: Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, M.R. Shah

     ITEM NO.3                   Court 6 (Video Conferencing)            SECTION IX

                                  S U P R E M E C O U R T O F      I N D I A
                                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)...... Diary No(s).8427/2020

     (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29-08-2019
     in WP No.3246/2016 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
     Bombay)

     RAMESH MISHRIMAL JAIN                                              Petitioner(s)

                                                   VERSUS

     AVINASH VISHWANATH PATNE & ANR.                                    Respondent(s)

     (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.80500/2020-CONDONATION OF DELAY
     IN FILING and IA No.80501/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
     IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.80502/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

     Date : 18-11-2020 This petition was called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :
                            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN
                            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
                            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

     For Petitioner(s)
                                       Mr. Cheitanya Madan, Adv.
                                       Ms. Akriti Chaubey , AOR
                                       Ms. Roohina Dua, Adv.

     For Respondent(s)

                             UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                                O R D E R

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Explanation I of Article 25 of the Bombay Stamp Act was not attracted in the present case, since the petitioner was already in possession as a tenant and possession was not transferred to the purchaser on the agreement to sell. He submits that no stamp duty is payable. He further submits that judgment of this Court reported in (1999) 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date: 2020.11.18 SCC 725 (Veena Hasmukh Jain and another vs. State of Maharashtra 16:23:37 IST Reason:

and others) is distinguishable and not applicable in the facts of 1 the present case.
Delay condoned.
Issue notice.
(ARJUN BISHT)             (RENU KAPOOR)
COURT MASTER (SH)         BRANCH OFFICER




                      2