Punjab-Haryana High Court
The State Of Punjab And Others vs The Bathinda Integrated Co-Operative ... on 23 August, 2012
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
Civil Revision No. 3825 of 1997 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No. 3825 of 1997
Date of decision:- 23.08.2012
The State of Punjab and others
....Petitioners
Vs.
The Bathinda Integrated Co-operative Cotton Ginning & Spinning
Mills Ltd. & another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
******
Present:- Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. A.G., Punjab,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Puneet Kansal, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL)
This petition assails the order dated 15.05.1997 passed by the District Judge, Bathinda, accepting the appeal filed by respondent No.1-The Bathinda Integrated Co-operative Cotton Ginning and Spinning Mills Ltd. against the order dated 21.11.1994 passed by the Collector, Bathinda, directing respondent No.1 to pay Rs.6,93,750/- as stamp duty on document No.1701 dated 11.06.1992 executed by it in favour of Punjab State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chandigarh, creating a mortgage to secure loan of Rs.4,62,50,000/-.
Civil Revision No. 3825 of 1997 2
The Appellate Court has elaborated both the notifications dated 15.07.1948 and 09.02.1962, which were notified under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). The notification dated 09.02.1962, though does not exonerate Co-operative Industrial Society from the provision of the Act, but respondent No.1 Society, which has been constituted for the benefit of the cotton growers and provides an outlet for ginning and spinning cotton which is its secondary object, cannot be treated as Industrial Society. The Appellate Court has further observed as under:-
"It is true that the society undertakes cotton ginning and spinning, but the society is a cotton growers society and its object is to provide maximum financial benefit to its members who are cotton growers by ginning and spinning cotton. The appellant being a cotton growers organization is engaged in industrial activities for the benefit of cotton growers. Therefore, it appears that the main object of the appellant society is to promote the cultivation of cotton in this area by providing an outlet for ginning and spinning cotton which is not its primary, but its secondary object. Accordingly, the appellant must be held to be a society of cotton growers and not an industrial society in the strict sense of the term."
Resultantly, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
(A.N.JINDAL)
August 23, 2012 JUDGE
ajp