M/S Archana Associates (Regd) vs Agamathraya Maha Mandala on 23 June, 2010

[Cites 3, Cited by 4]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Archana Associates (Regd) vs Agamathraya Maha Mandala on 23 June, 2010

Bench: Aravind Kumar

Ihi THE HIGH CQURT OF KRRNATAIOR, BANGALORE ..__

% DATED "ms THE 23*" DAY 0? JUNE 2910 

SEFGRE

THE HONBLE MR.J.US1ICE ARAVIND }'    

Berwsetsa:

M15 ARCHAHA A8SOC1AT'£$_('R,_EG%_'5*) _  ._ , 
APARTNERSHIP mas    1 ' V
Ho.5a,A<:;AMA BHAVIAN -. V  =
PAMPA MAHAKAVI was  % 
BANGALORE - 559 3914;-. 1.

REP av an Homsa _ . '-

SR1 B s Amrm-'I  
AGEDABQUTEEYEARS   .. V
510 LATE K~--.*3E$HA. IY'E?é'3Ai2.. 
ARCHAK    ,  _ -
ER} CHAﬁHARAY}15W§$'ﬁYéYE4HPLE '
VARTHUR - _  
BANGALORE -:-»ss~aas:?  J L

V _ _ ...PE'!'£TII3§'éE¥?.
" gaff  g,_{jr.ggN,  _____ _. v

 A%MATHRA":'AfMA=HA MAN DAM .11; 
 R R C!-4!.§2ULTR3'!'_ cmmzurm
 ?AMPA MAHAKAVI RGAD
~ .. j;- »3':'miGAL€1'RE ?- 566 964
_  R§Pn5.'.'__ITS 'PREsII:>E:éT&G£ri SECRETARY
"   ,   mzsponosm

V  _'_"{.8v":;R1:AsHoK HARAHAHALLI, ADV GENERAL &
 T M :3 ANJARAMURTHY, HCGP}

" THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 22.6 0? THE
CGNSTYTUWIQN OF IHDIA PRAYING T0 QBASH THE DRGERS
VIDE AMf*IEXL¥RE~A DATED D3.D8.2{JU9 READ WITH ORDER

DATED 06.68.2009 PASSED BY 'THE COURT CBF HOWBLE XIV



ADDL. CIT'? CIVIL JUDGE {CCH45} IN 03 NG.1B653f20i}5
WHEREUQBER, THE ?ETITIONER. Hﬁﬁ BEER CALLED UPOi'5!_ TD
FAY THE DEFICIT 5-TAM? QUTY AND THE PENALTY Ti3TAL1'¥'i'£3"TCi-_
Rs.4,48,E{}£}f~ (FEUPEES FOUR LACKHS FORT?' EIGHT TH{1_ij£SAi'u'i} " .

mm; on £x.:>: I.E., me LEASE Asaeamemr ¢51?E-D;"~; -

15.11.1983

, VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC, THIS W? 18 Comic on ma c:r{i:»&as& 1?:-:15" Mr', Vinéie cousin' mos THE FOLLGWING:

oanﬁg « % M This writ petition is ciireacbv$§*i$Qa.iVfis§"t!::§i:séideif: dated 03.03.2009 read with a:§§é«rMd;§£e§ii ﬁaissed by the XIV Addi. City (:iv.ii'_ j~.Jiigi;gL§, in as Nc>.1(35S3l2G{}§i_':V been called upon to pay penaity totaiing ta"

ns,4,4a,3ar;;;%_i ~

2. ' T153 rm! iitéaciiifxgitdi filing of this Writ Petitinn in a rzutséigeii are as'-azfadér: V"

i _& .eg% hééiibeen executed on 16.11.1988 by in favour of the petitioner fur _a 2 _pariéé'««._of 30 During the subsistence af lease, a suit izseei-rfiied for ejectment ef' the writ patitianer in OS * i\'iu.V1'i£2*.'S:S3/2006 and during the coursa er adjudication of ':'_4'th-eisuit, the trier! Judge has directed the registry by arciar 'iiatad 013.08. 2009 to caicuiate the stamp duty and penalty payahie on Ex.D1 namely the iease deed dated 'K 16.12.1933. By virtua of such ciiraction issued by theV.tr_iai Court, registry has calculated the stamp duty payabi.€ja:é'v~.. Rs.4,48,8G0,'- by applying grtktie 30(5) (V) 3G(:i)(c) of Karnataka Stamp Act :<.;5:*.am£w§: éjaééadﬁrsésd that defendant is lia his $0 pay a way of duty and penaity. i:aa§is._r§"f:A "raid caicuiation masts by the,:j§agisI;n:;u.t'ff¥aI"'~Cpu}tﬁms zﬁmcted the defemiarzt ta pay the by its arder dated "bf the order passed an T impugned. in the praser:t..wfit~.%$eEit§_9n. . " >3

3. ",'i"his' an G8.G6.2ﬂ1{3. As it invczived _tt1e ';2ay rm::§--t Adf: éiémp duty and aiso in viaw of "thﬂe {he Counsel for the petitioner reiiadj rrtent of this Court in the case of The Attbority, Inspector General of . jv»-V'«._'_Registrat@: and Cammissianer cf Stamps, ﬁangafore V Instruments (India) Limited, Bangafare and h repaired In .2903 (6) KL} 437 (FM! Eench), this : Court was of the View that the isamed Advocaee General shauid be requmted to assist the Caurt in the matter since «V the revenuae of the State was Erwoived.

tea med Advecate Genera! has app-ea red tada}; ~ submitted that the Triai Cam-t ha5.;n3t4ccra'§idv§£ji;é'd whether Articie 3c(3.)(.»:) is appucabaa ta:%e:é%jr§cc§ case an examinétion of facts aﬁd "Et..§s :.V*.:":§if :;z:7s a caicuiation drama by the §'vargistr1A(,._4.L:§ii_Air:§:;<;'x:i§;§£3 given to the defendant to ;'qr§Ci: As such he wouid submit thatit. _1_A:::>ui:3"' tfirect the triai Court 'at: pa5§..a}.:f¢4' :¢;J::::1_r4.§Vi:i&-:§'§?i'né§§g""'tV'P:e contenticacxwiaf the part§esVV1'a:3§ the dacumer:t_ in questicni'-gin cﬁnsidering the judgment of Vexas Instkc:r:_'1¢t::v£s"'rg'f:[rra'§cTi'j§:5 Jaupra. Svrin.K '3 Li'miah, Eaarnad Counsai appearing for aiso fairly concede that H: wouid be fan? d,_éé£:'isi::_i1'1$§.g%z-E53 the ma: Ccmrt had ad mittedli; not given an ¢ppa~:-{unify tn: the petitioner ta pbée its case.» hefare it Aa :-Ei'~s_re at-a decisian as to whether Article 30(1)(c) is " 'éttfacted to the docamént in questian or mt. S. In View at' such submissicms made by the iearned Caunsei for the petitinner and iearrsed Advocate General appearing for the state, this caurt is of the 453/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court