Dr S Vidhya vs Sri R S Venakata Reddy on 4 November, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

Dr S Vidhya vs Sri R S Venakata Reddy on 4 November, 2010

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

I A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 
DATED THIS THE 4"' DAY OF NOVEMIBER,'*2OIO1'Ij"'  ~
BEEOREM [fl _,
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N;;VEN_0GfDPALA' GOwD'A,__ I'

WRIT PETITION NO.2OS78/20100 (GMIV--C53f:C)4_ I  

BETWEEN:

DR. S.VIDHYA
D/O NSOMASHEKAR __  :
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS  _  '

,R/A NO.796 . 

 . '. S/O._'S~IDD._ARAMAIA'H«  ..... .. -
 'HIND'U,MAL!O'R__
 R/A~RAM.ANAIYAKA_NAHALLI VILLAGE
' THI.R.PAIsAfwD RA; , 

I . BANGALG-REIIISTRICT.

 ":I('3yVS'RI ZAHEER AHMED, AGA &
_  s_RI*G;PARI REDDY, ADV.)

'TQAIND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
"QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.10.2009 IN

9TH A MAIN ROAD',"I;~_IsT STAGE" -   
INDIRANAGAR~,'--,  ~ _f   .
E3/-\NGALOREi ,-  »

  "  PETITIONER

(BY SRII-S.KI'AL'TAI%E,BASAVAI.RA3, I-"OR MUNIYAPPA, ADV.)
AND:   I I I I I

SRI R;5--vvENAI<'ATA' REDDV

sAIRJAIPuRA.'1HO'aLI
AN EKAL TA.a_u'K,'

 RESPONDENT

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 O.S.NO.1198/2006 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) ANEKAL, deed of conveyance. Adequate stamp duty was Hence, the court was empowered to pass an order',ir'i§'tern'1«sA of Section 33 of the Act.

9. The suit having not beenllpostedj..'i.fd,r"trial.a'r:dV"g the document having not beei«n:"admittedV, in for being acted upon, the':trial error in directing the payment penalty at 10 times. the impugned order is illegal,;."-1""° In the.Vaf~o're,said"~..,:s'i'tu'ation, the impugned order passed by°the_tri'a.lléwcourtkstands quashed. However, the trial«§;ou'r~t is directedto impound the sale agreements as »inVdiicVate_d'«in'Sec_tion 33(1) of the Act. If the plaintiff seeks the.'--detVermination of the deficit stamp duty and penalty, A the'.s'am"é,bheéfdetermined and he may be permitted to remit 3' ':j.theis_amVe. In case the plaintiff is not willing, the trial court ttlforward the sale agreements to the Deputy Commissioner concerned as envisaged in Section 37(2) of the Act. The trial court shall await the receipt of the /x"

a--u certificate or the order passed by the Commissioner for proceeding further in the si,i~it.. ~ be revived only on receipt of such_Jcerti4ficate"'a'n:d;Vthe p_c'_.x:ip'y,_V in of the order of the Deputy Commisésiofner writ petition stands disposed"off-accord-ing!y_. In the circumstances o_fh't'het«:'C.as'e,._there"sheH be no order as to costs.

Tﬁ3§'*'§ KSJ/- _

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court