Karnataka High Court
Yogeshwar C P S/O Puttamadegowda vs Smt Kariyamma on 11 June, 2012
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ON THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.4386 OF 2012(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
YOGESHWAR C P
S/O PUTTAMADEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ,
M/S.MEGACITY DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS LTD
NO.1,CHANDRALOK,
5TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 009
AND HEAD OFFICE AT NO.120,
MEGHA TOWERS, KH ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
PETITIONER IS REPRESENTED BY HIS
POWER OF ATTORYNER HOLDER,
P MAHADEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O PUTTEGOWDA,
DIRECTOR,
M/S.MEGACITY DEVELOPERS,
NO.1, CHANDRALOK,
5TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 009. ...PETITIONER
2
( BY SRI. R S RAVI & SRI NARENDRA D V GOWDA, ADVOCATES)
AND :
1 SMT KARIYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
W/O LATE UGRAPPA
R/AT SHESHAGIRIHALLI VILLAGE,
BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT.
2 NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
S/O LATE UGRAPPA
R/AT SHESHAGIRIHALLI VILLAGE,
BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT.
3 REVANNA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O LATE UGRAPPA
R/AT SHESHAGIRIHALLI VILLAGE,
BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT.
4 CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O LATE UGRAPPA
R/AT SHESHAGIRIHALLI VILLAGE,
BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT
5 RAJANNA
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O LATE UGRAPPA
R/AT SHESHAGIRIHALLI VILLAGE,
BIDADI HOBLI,
3
RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT.
6 CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O LATE UGRAPPA
R/AT SHESHAGIRIHALLI VILLAGE,
BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT.
7 T M THIMMEGOWDA @ GANESH
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
S/O CHKKAMUTHAIAH @ THAMMAIAH ,
CHIKKAUTHEGOWDANADODDI,
MEDAMARAHABALLI POST, YEREHALLI
DAKLE, KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
8 M THIMMEGOWDA
S/O LATE MUTHEGOWDA
AGED MAJOR
MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHAIRMAN
S P R DEVELOPERS PVT LTD.,
NO.34/2, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
GANDHINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 27.1.2012 MADE ON IA.NO.NIL IN
O.S.NO.528/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN.),
RAMANAGARAM, VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
4
ORDER
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance based on the agreement of sale dated 19.07.2002 and seeking other consequential reliefs. An application under Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act read with Section 151 of CPC was filed by the plaintiff himself seeking permission to pay the deficit duty payable on the agreement of sale dated 19.07.2002 on the consideration of Rs.41,10,000/- @ 7½% on Rs.3,08,050/- and the nominal penalty. The trial Court by the impugned order partly allowed the application and permitted the plaintiff to pay the deficit stamp duty along with the penalty of 10 times of the deficit stamp duty. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.
2. In support of the application, no reasons are forth coming as to why a minimum penalty should be imposed. By relying on the unreported judgment of this Court dated 07.09.2011 passed in W.P.No.8892/2010, it is contended that the levy of penalty can be Rs.5/- instead of 10 times. 5
3. I 'am unable to accept the said reasoning. Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act states that the penalty to be imposed could be a sum of Rs.5 or when ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds five rupees, of a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion. The provision of Section 34 is clear and unambiguous and does not call for any interpretation.
4. The judgment relied upon is to the effect that while levying alternative penalty not more than 10 times, normally the Court or the Deputy Commissioner shall levy penalty double the duty and only in the exceptional circumstances for special reasons, the harsher and extreme step to levy penalty not more than 10 times to be invoked.
5. I 'am unable to read any of those words in Section 34 of the Act. Section 34 does not speak of the levy by the Court or the Deputy Commissioner of double the duty nor it 6 speaks of the exceptional circumstances for special reasons. None of those words stated is found in Section 34 of the Act. Therefore, one would have to be guided by the words in the statute especially when the Section is clear and unambiguous. The judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is contrary to Section 34 of the Act. Hence, reliance placed on the judgment by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is ill-founded.
6. The discretionary powers exercised by the trial Court is just and proper. It came to the conclusion that the petitioner is neither a rustic nor unaware of the legal consequences. The petitioner is very well aware of the stamp duty required to be paid by him. The only reason given in his affidavit in support of the application is placing reliance on the said judgment. The trial Court is justified in imposing 10 times of the deficit stamp duty. The order passed by the trial Court is just and proper and does not call for interference. I do not find any error in the order passed by the trial Court.
7
7. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Prs*