Smt R Sudharani W/O Sri G La ... vs Smt C Krishnamma on 10 November, 2009

[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Smt R Sudharani W/O Sri G La ... vs Smt C Krishnamma on 10 November, 2009

Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri

 

1

IN THE 11:93 COURT op KARNATAKA AT 
DATED THIS THE 1013+ DAY 01:'  5:   _
BEFVDRE       .
THE HOITBLE. MR'. JUSTICE 
WRIT PETITION No.26932?'F retjoa 

 I    .
SMTRSUDHARANI       
W/0 SR1 G.L.CHANDRASHEKA.F2 j  V 
AGEDABOUT-H'&'EAR:3   I 
PERMANENT 0?   
No.12, Inamm    A
GORAGUNTEPALYTA,  A  'a L

5m  :mAv%jA    
H0105,   

NEAR V£NAYi£,KA TE,Ivﬂ'?I;E...L7
«rm BLQCK, NAHDINI LEYOUT,

  1'3'm'1°333-

%  f T   ,  %Ljk%{Bif 31:21 E .v1JAY SI-IETTY, ADV.)

  sra1*§'<:_.i{1ézs}mAmm

..-mu \.uur\I ur l'\.HlU'{HU-KIU-\ rm.-:H t.:(.)!J,.:I('l OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C

u 1 'W/O=LA'I'E RANGASWAMY
 A AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
 ma No.12, aw MAIN ROAD
 YESHWAN'I'HPURA HOBLI
  GORAGUIWEPALYA

 -

2. SR} QPDEVENDRA 3/ O LATE GRUPADAYAYA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS l2 payable as per Article 30(c) as if it is the 'fine' or 'premium' or 'money advance.'

13. Sri Hﬁanumantharayappa, Government Pleader submits that we h_aye:"_'to recitals of the documents than Going by the recitals. he sui_3mitls'.that question is chargeable 3ti[a}[i] and Article 30 [1}[c] of to_'t.he~rI§arnataka Stamp Act.1957. 'V thatwfalls for my consideration is: of lease, dated 29.4.2001 attracts the rental amounts and on the answer this question partly in the : partly in the negative.

Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jfhellﬂliief Controlling Authority (supra) has held that it "'V'lltl"n;:aIi1OuI1t reserved as refundable security deposit is " -":1"iOt the money advanced in addition to the rent reserved and it does not attract th uty under Article 30(c} of 13 the Schedule to the Act. Similarly, in the case of V.Srinivascm (supra) also it was held that the amount advanced is in the nature of premium, as there was no provision for the return of the advance. amount advanced could only be the consideration for» the grant of lease.

16. The decision relied u pori by thae"i'es:pondent's_:

side in the case of Leelatriéiii-ft S_atriﬂe.il_(.su15ra) is no more governing the field _inl.'viev.i. o'f_'jth;'eidecision rendered by the Full.» the Chief Contirtolliiagiv2'iu't.fiorii:§i's..case (supra). The decision in the case.__of _I§§Rtir:na.c'iidndra Rao [supra] is in the context' of V.C'ouif_t_____fee. Different words like 'Salami', J .fPu.gre,e"~a11.d"v'Nazrana', etc. are used in different parts of "theVi'couri't;f_V'.1"Whatever be the nomenclature, the tests are whether the amount advanced is refundable or A 5l_" Aladjustable towards the arrears of rent. If the amount so advanced is refundable, then ii: does not attract the payment' of stamp duty. The payment of amount advanced would attract the stamp duty, if it goes R9;-g 14 irrevocably into the pocket of the landlord. if this proposition requires the authority, it is to be found in the case of Chief Controlling Revenue Autherity, Delhi (supra).

17. In the result, I allow this petition.Virfparitii by setting aside that part of 30.7.2009 [Annexure--M) which 'f3er'taing0V.to*VV:t:he §;t¢irn;§*_ duty payabie on the securitgfdeposit Eaitiouht {shown as advance amount ir1«._..V:iih'e'A._ agreemehtt of lease, dated 29.4.2001); that part"offthe"»orde_rV«:"i}§riiich pertains to starrip duty. re1a.tai..aIriount, is upheld.

-- .. 18. " No 'order'-assto costs. Sd/--

EUDGE it it AGV/VGR

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court