Karnataka High Court
Sri S Velu vs Sri Mahesh S on 31 March, 2017
Equivalent citations: 2017 (2) AKR 648
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.421/2016 (EX.)
BETWEEN:
Sri S Velu,
S/o Shanmugam,
Aged about 40 years,
Residing at No.4 (Old No.127),
North East Portion of the
Second Floor,
5th Cross, 1st Block,
Jayanagar,
Bangalore 560 011. Petitioner
(By Sri Ravishankar S. - Advocate)
And:
Sri Mahesh. S,
S/o late S V Subbaiah,
Aged about 37 years,
Residing at No.181/A,
Railwaymen's Building
Co-operative Society,
Shankarnagar,
Bangalore 560 096. Respondent
(By Sri H P Leeladhar - Advocate)
2
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 18 of the
Karnataka Small Cause Court Act, 1964 against the order
dated 26.9.2016 in Ex. P. No.1076/2016 on the file of the
Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru directing the petitioner to
pay Rs.1,62,800/- towards deficit duty and penalty in
respect of document dated 5.3.2012 styled as lease
agreement to get it marked.
This petition having heard and reserved for orders on
23.1.2017 and this day coming on for pronouncement of
orders, court made the following:
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, who was the obstructer in Ex. P No.1076/2016, being aggrieved of the order dated 26.9.2016 in the said execution petition, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,62,800/- towards deficit duty and penalty in respect of the lease agreement dated 5.3.2012, on which basis, the petitioner claims to be in possession of the petition property.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent and another filed suit for ejectment against 3 one Sri Shabarish and the suit came to be decreed by the judgment and decree dated 10.3.2016. The said judgment and decree was put in execution, in which the petitioner filed obstruction application. The said obstruction application was put into enquiry. The petitioner was examined as PW-1 and he wanted to rely upon a lease agreement. The respondent raised an objection for marking the said document on the ground of insufficiency of stamp duty and its non registration. Under the said lease agreement, a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was stated to have been paid as a refundable security deposit. The court below determined the duty under Article 30(iii) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, hereinafter referred to as `the Act' for short, at Rs.14,800/- and penalty at Rs.1,48,000/- in total Rs.1,62,800/-. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
4
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the security deposit was repayable at the time of vacating the premises and therefore no duty is attracted on the same under Article 30(c) of the Act. It is further contended that the document is only a security bond and chargeable with stamp duty as contemplated under Article 47 of the Act and duty already paid on the document is sufficient.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supports the order of the court below. It is contended that earlier security deposit which was repayable did not attract the stamp duty but after the amendment to the Act, such a security deposit do attract stamp duty and therefore the duty and penalty determined by the court below are in accordance with law, calling for no interference. It is already concluded 5 by the court below that the document in question cannot be interpreted as security bond also. Hence the learned counsel for the respondent prays for rejection of the civil revision petition.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is, whether the impugned order suffers from any irregularity calling for interference by this Court? My answer would be in the negative for the following reasons:
7. It is true that earlier on the refundable security deposit, no duty was attracted. But after the amendment to the Act such a security deposit attracts duty. It is in this context, better to extract Article 30(iii) of the Act, which is as under:
(iii) where the lease One rupee for every purports to be for a term one hundred rupees exceeding one year and not or part thereof on exceeding ten years. the total amount or value of the average annual rent, premium fine and money advanced.6
An explanation to Article 30 makes it clear that security deposit attracts duty, which is as follows:
Explanation: The term "money advanced" in this Article means and includes the security deposit whether refundable or adjustable towards the rent".
Therefore, the first contention of the petitioner is liable to be rejected and it is accordingly rejected.
8. Secondly it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the document is a security bond and whatever duty paid is sufficient vide Article 47 of the Act. In order to construe the document as a Security Bond or Mortgage, the document must be executed by way of security for the due execution of an office or to account for money or other property received by virtue thereof, or execution by a surety to secure the due performance of a contract to bring it within the realm of Article 47 of the Act. Here is a case where it is 7 claimed by the petitioner that the premises is leased in his favour for a period of five years and in lieu of payment of rent, he has paid a refundable security deposit of Rs.15 lakhs. Therefore, the document cannot be construed as a security bond as sought to be contended by the petitioner.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to place reliance on the following decisions and the said decisions are prior to amendment to the Karnataka Stamp Act and therefore they are of no assistance to the petitioner.
(1) ILR 1999 KAR 4634: K Amarnath vs., Smt.Puttamma.
(2) AIR 1976 SC 1813 (Board of Revenue etc. etc. vs., A M Ansari etc.,) (3) AIR 2004 KAR 70 (Chief Controlling Authority, Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of STamps, Bangalore v. M/s.
Texas Instruments India Ltd.,) 8 (4) AIR 1985 KNT 61 Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. M V Chandrashekar & others). (5) AIR 1980 Delhi 249 (Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Delhi v. Marshall Produce Brokers Co. Pvt. Ltd., Delhi
10. In view of the above, the conclusion is that the impugned order passed by the court below is perfectly justified and no interference is called for. However, as held in the case of Dr.Satish Babu vs., M D Anwar, reported in (2016(1) KCCR 446, liberty is to be reserved to the petitioner to seek refund of the penalty amount in excess of Rs.5/- from the Deputy Commissioner in terms of Section 38 of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. With this modification, the impugned order is hereby confirmed. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE akd*