Karnataka High Court
Brig R Lokranjan vs K Srinivas Murthy on 20 July, 2012
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ON THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.22265 OF 2012(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
BRIG R LOKRANJAN
S/O LATE RAO BAHADUR
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS,
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER
SRI ASHOK KUMAR RAO
S/O LATE N. VENKOBA RAO
R/AT NO.60, VEERAPILLAI STREET,
BANGALORE - 560 061. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1 K SRINIVAS MURTHY
S/O LATE M.KEMPAIAH
MAJOR, R/AT NO.37-51,
SERPENTINE ROAD,
UPSTAIRS BUILDING,
KUMARA PARK,
2
BANGALORE - 560 020.
2 SMT. JAYAMMA
D/O PATEL NANJAPPA
MAJOR, R/AT BETTAHALASOOR
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 060.
3 SMT. SHANTHAMMA
W/O SRI CHINNAPPA
MAJOR, R/AT CHIKKA JALA
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 060.
R1 & R3 DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED
13.07.2012.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M G KUMAR LAW FIRM, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2
R1 & R3-DELETED)
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 6.6.2012 PASSED BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC IN OS.NO.329/2006 VIDE
ANNEXURE-D IN SO FAR AS THE IMPOSITION OF THE
3
PENALTY OF 10 TIMES AMOUNTING TO RS.15,18,000/-
(RUPEES FIFTEEN LAKHS AND EIGHTEEN THOUSAND ONLY)
AND TO IMPOSE A REASONABLE PENALTY ON THE
PETITIONER.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction. An objection was raised by the 2nd defendant for marking of the Power of Attorney dated 29-12-1999 as it is not duly stamped in terms of Rule 41(e)(b) of the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act and that the same is liable to be impounded under Section 33 & 34 of Karnataka the Stamp Act. By the impugned order the trial Court held that the Power of Attorney dated 29-12-1999 is insufficiently stamped and directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,58,000/- and the penalty of 10 4 times the deficit portion as Rs.15,18,000/- namely, in all a sum of Rs.17,38,000/- within a period of one month from the said order. Aggrieved by the same, the present Petition is filed.
2. Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner, Respondent no.2 and the learned Government Advocate Sri Vijayakumar. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. That the penalty of 10 times imposed on the petitioner is highly exorbitant and is excessive. That he is not liable to pay any penalty. That the document was originally registered in the State of Andhra Pradhesh which does not call for any stamp duty at this rate. It was only when the same was sought to be produced in the present suit that he has been confronted with the situation and hence the impugned order is liable to be set side. 5
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-2 contends that the liability to pay the stamp duty was well known to the plaintiff and hence now he cannot plead that he was unaware of the law of the land. However, keeping in mind the strong financial capacity of the petitioner he should pay the said amount.
4. On the other hand, Sri Vijaykumar, the learned Government Advocate, pleads that the impugned order is just in law and no interference is called for. That the penalty imposed is in terms of the statute and the discretion exercised by the trial Court does not call for any interference.
5. On hearing the learned counsels and examining the impugned order I'am of the considered view that so far 6 as the question of payment of stamp duty as well as penalty is concerned, the same is undisputed. However the trial Court has not given any reasons as to why it has exercised its discretion in awarding penalty of 10 times the deficit of the stamp duty. The trial Court should have reasoned as to the imposition of this penalty. Failure to do so therefore has lead to miscarriage of justice. However, on hearing the learned counsels and examining the impugned order and keeping in view the economic status of the petitioner as well as the revenue receivable by the State, it would be just and necessary to reduce the penalty from 10 times the value of the stamp duty to 5 times. Accordingly, the said order is modified. The plaintiff is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,58,000/- as stamp duty and Rs.7,90,000/- (1,58,000 x 5) as penalty constituting 5 times the amount of stamp duty. Hence, in all a sum of Rs.8,17,000 (Rs.1,58,000 + 7,90,000) Rs.9,48,000/- within a period of 7 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Writ Petition is disposed off accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Rsk