Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 67 (3.86 seconds)
Documents citing Himalaya House Co. Ltd. Bombay vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority on 1 February, 1972

Ramesh Chandra Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 9 October, 2006

14. Section 47-A fills in the lacuna which was found by the Supreme Court in Himalaya House Co. Ltd. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (supra), it empowers the Collector to deal with those cases where the parties by arrangement deliberately undervalue the property with a view to defraud the Government of the legitimate revenue by way of stamp duty. It is not correct that the Collector is not empowered to determine on a case being referred to him by the Sub-Registrar under Section 47-A(1), that the market value is in fact less than the minimum value to be determined by Rule 341 and to find on that basis whether the transaction sets forth the market value truly or not. Similarly, the hands and power of the Collector are not confined to the minimum value given in Rule 341. It can hold it to be more if it is satisfied on the materials brought before him to that effect. Rule 341 had been framed by the legislature only for the limited purpose of providing a guideline. It is not conclusive. That being so, under Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A, if the Registering Officer is satisfied that the market value is less than even the minimum value, he may refer the document to the Collector for determination of the value of such property. This is the only function of Rule 341. It is neither binding on the person who produces the instrument for registration nor on the State Government.
Allahabad High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 18 - P Krishna - Full Document

Girjesh Kumar Srivastava And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 8 December, 1997

18. A plain reading of sub-section (4) of Section 47A makes it clear that the Collector may. suo motu or on a reference from any Court or other authorities as mentioned in the said sub-section, call for and examine the instrument for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property which is subject of such instrument and duty payable thereon and if after such examination he has reason to believe that the market value of such property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may determine the market value of such property and the duty payable thereon in accordance with the procedure provided for in sub-section (3) and then the difference, if any. In the amount of duty shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty. What procedure is to be adopted by the Collector for determining the market value of the property Involved and the duty payable thereon is laid down in sub-section (3) of Section 47A. Sub-section (3) embodies in itself a right of hearing based on the principle of natural justice and an Inquiry is then to be held in the manner prescribed under the rules made under the Act. This enactment thus provides for framing of rules only for the purposes of the manner of holding the inquiry. Neither sub-section (3) nor sub-section (4) makes any reference to the imposition of penalty or any other penal consequence, even if it is ultimately found that the market value of the property was not truly set forth in the instrument. It merely speaks of the liability of the person concerned to pay the difference, if any, in the amount of duty payable on the correct market value of the property involved.
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 53 - G P Mathur - Full Document

State Of M.P. vs Srf Limited Having Its Registered ... on 3 September, 2019

41. We have no hesitation to set aside the order of learned Single Judge and hold that learned Single Judge has failed to apply himself and to take into consideration the provisions contained in Section 27 and distinguish the ratio of law laid down in case of Himalaya House Co. Ltd., Bombay, Hem Lata and another, L & T Komatsu Ltd. and Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. and others (supra), and therefore, in the light of the law laid down in case of Duncans Industries Ltd. (supra) and Vinayak Dattatraya v. Hasanali Haji Nazarali as reported in AIR 1961 MP 6 order of Collector of Stamps and order of Board of Revenue passed thereafter in revision need to be 40 Writ Appeal No.498/2007 given a seal of approval and are affirmed. The order of learned Single Judge is set aside.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 1 - V Agarwal - Full Document

Srf Limited vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 29 November, 2004

4. In our judgment, the views taken by the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court are perfectly justified and unexceptionable. This Court in Himalaya House Co. Ltd. v. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority had occasion to consider almost a similar situation. This Court noticed that. Article 23 of Schedule 1A to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 had come up for consideration, before various High Courts on a number of occasions.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 3 - R Menon - Full Document

Harjinder Pal Singh vs The Collector Of Stamps Sub-Divisional ... on 4 September, 2018

"4. In our judgment, the views taken by the learned single judge and the Division Bench of the High Court are perfectly justified arid unexceptionable. This Court in Himalaya House Co. Ltd. v. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Anr. had occasion to consider almost a similar situation. This Court noticed that Article 23 of Schedule 1A to the Indian Stamp Act 1899 had come up for consideration before various High Courts on a number of occasions.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - V Bakhru - Full Document

The Sub Registrar Amudalavalasa vs M/S Dankuni Steels Ltd. on 26 April, 2023

39. The proviso to Section 27 of the Act, added by the Andhra Pradesh Amending Act (8 of 1988), does empower the Officer to inspect the property, make local inquiries in the facts, call for connected records, examine them and satisfy that the provisions of Section 27 are complied with. Section 27, undoubtedly, provides that the consideration, if any, 57 and the other facts and circumstances, affecting the chargeability of any instrument or the amount of duty, must be fully and correctly set forth. Equally, Section 47A of the Andhra Pradesh Amending Act (8 of 1988), empowers the Registering Officer to deal with undervalued instruments. We have adverted to the provision and it provides for an elaborate procedure to deal with the problem of undervaluation. It may be true that Section 27 of the Act read with Section 64, as interpreted in Himalaya Space House Company Limited (supra), was understood as meaning only that failure to comply with Section 27, was punishable under Section 64. The Court, in the said case, in fact, noted the absence of any provision, empowering the Revenue to make an independent inquiry for determining the value of the property.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - K Joseph - Full Document

Kaka Singh vs The Additional Collector And District ... on 29 August, 1985

14. Section 47-A fills in the lacuna which was found by the Supreme Court in Himalaya House Co. Ltd. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, (AIR 1972 SC 899) (supra), it empowers the Collector to deal with those cases where the parties by arrangement deliberately undervalue the property with a view to defraud the Government of the legitimate revenue by way of stamp duty. It is not correct that the Collector is not empowered to determine on a case being referred to him by the Sub-Registrar under Section 47-A(1), that the market value is in fact less than the minimum value to be determined by Rule 341 and to find on that basis whether the transaction sets forth the market value truly or not. Similarly, the hands and power of the Collector are not confined to the minimum, value given in Rule 341. It can hold it to be more if it is satisfied on the materials brought before him to that effect. Rule 341 had been framed by the legislature only for the limited purpose of providing a guideline. It is not conclusive. That being so, under Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A, if the Registering Officer is satisfied that the market value is less than even the minimum value, he may refer the document to the Collector for determination of the value of such property. This is the only function of Rule 341. It is neither binding on the person who produces the instrument for registration nor on the State Government.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 33 - Full Document

J.H.V. Sugar Corporation Ltd. vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority ... on 11 September, 2003

"11. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed for our consideration a Judgment of this Court in the case of Himalaya House Co. Ltd. Bombay v. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (1972) 1 SCC 726 : (AIR 1972 SC 899) to contend that a mere reference to an earlier agreement does not amount to incorporation of the terms and conditions of an earlier transaction or the intention of the parties. We have carefully considered the said judgment and, in our opinion, that judgment does not in any manner lay down the law in absolute terms that a Court cannot look into prior agreement while considering the intention of the parties for finding out what actually is the property that is conveyed under the deed under consideration. It is again based on facts of that case that this Court came to the conclusion therein that the so called terms and conditions which were found in an earlier agreement were not intended to be incorporated in the subsequent document. This is clear from the following observations of this Court appearing in para 10 of the said judgment :
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Gorva Vibhag Co-Operative Housing ... vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 5 May, 1992

The Court also dealt with the submission that on account of certain circumstances the property had sometime to be sold for a consideration which did not represent the market value and, therefore, the concept of market value should not be taken into consideration. The Court negatived the said contention by holding that broad guidelines for determining the market value laid down in the List prepared by the State Government are to be taken into consideration but are not to be treated as conclusive. The Court finally held that Sections 27 and 47A as amended by the M.P. Act No. 8 of 1975 were within the legislative competence of the State of Madhya Pradesh and are not ultra vires.
Gujarat High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 12 - M B Shah - Full Document

Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, ... vs Regional Labour Commissioner ... on 16 January, 2006

On the above facts and consideration, it is seen that the applicant had been appointed as Craftman 'trainee' under a training Scheme of the Organization with a specific purpose to continue him in the service of the Organization. The employer's intention clearly gets transpired from the condition laid down in the training scheme whereby the trainee was required to execute a bond to serve the organization for at least 5 years after completion of training period and accordingly the applicant was absorbed on the post of Operator Gr.II. Therefore, the engagement as trainee shall essentially be considered as contract of employment and not a contract of apprentice or learning of trade alone. Moreover, as transpired from the discussion and arguments of the parties, the applicant after having completed one year of induction training was posted in a particular department against a specified post and was assigned certain duties to perform under the supervision of some superior, which can safely be concluded that the organization was benefited out of their services even during training period.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - R Tiwari - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next