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 1, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Jain Supari Centre, A Partnership Firm, ... vs Shri Rameshlal S/O Motilal Hasoriya And ... on 23 January, 2019

Author: Manish Pitale

Bench: Manish Pitale

                                                  1                                    WP4922-18.odt


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

                            Writ Petition No.4922 of 2018
    (Jain Supari Centre, A partnership firm and ors. .vs. Rameshlal Motilal
                            Hasoriya and another )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders or directions                         Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's orders
                    Mr. S.V. Purohit, Advocate for Petitioners.
                    Mr. S.S. Tiani, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
                    Mr. A.R. Chutke, AGP for Respondent No.3.

                    CORAM : Manish Pitale, J.

DATED : January 23, 2019.

In response to order dated 26.11.2018 whereby the subsequently added respondent no.3 i.e. Collector of Stamps, Nagpur, was directed to file an affidavit, an affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the said respondent, wherein it is stated that a deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,48,350/- and penalty of Rs.1,86,921/- is due and payable in respect of tenancy agreement dated 1.1.2013.

2. Mr. Sitani, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2, points out that under Section 30 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 and the aforesaid tenancy agreement itself, the liability to pay the said amount is on the petitioners and not on respondent nos. 1 and 2. A perusal of the said provision clearly shows that it is the lessee who has to pay the amount towards the stamp duty and in the present case the petitioners being lessee, prima facie, it appears that the liability rests with the petitioners.

3. In this backdrop, Mr. Purohit, learned counsel ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2019 04:59:22 ::: 2 WP4922-18.odt for the petitioners, submits that the issue pertaining to Section 30 of the aforesaid Act has cropped up for the first time before this Court and, therefore, a short adjournment be granted to respond to the same. List this writ petition on 30.01.2019 for further consideration.

JUDGE halwai ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2019 04:59:22 :::