Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.36 seconds)Article 18 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 23 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
K.V. Kadiresan & Com., By Partner K.V. ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Reptd, By The ... on 14 June, 1984
10. In fine, the writ appeal is allowed the order of the learned Single
Judge dismissing the writ petition is set aside. The demand made by the
sub-Registrar is also set aside. The 47-A proceedings are quashed. All duty
collected from the appellant except the duty of 5% + 1% i.e., found payable
as per the judgment of this Court in Bell Tower Enterprises LLP, Rep. by its
Managing Partner Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to
Government (Supra) will be refunded to the petitioner with interest at 9%
from the date of payment till date of repayment. It is seen that the petitioner
has also paid a sum of Rs.74,50,000/- towards additional duty in the
proceedings under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. The said sum will also be
refunded to the petitioner with interest at 9% from the date of payment viz.,
22.03.2024 till date of repayment. No costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
M/S Esjaypee Impex Private Limited vs The Asst. General Manager And ... on 11 September, 2020
Inspector General of Registration, (Full Bench) and The
Inspector General of Registration v. Prakash Chand Jain,
(Division Bench) are no longer good law, in view of the
pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Esjaypee
Impex Pvt Ltd v. Assistant General Manager and
Authorised Officer, Canara Bank.
Registrar Of Assurances vs Asl Vyapar Private Ltd. on 10 November, 2022
9. In view of the above categoric pronouncement of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court we conclude that the impugned action of the Sub-Registrar
viz., the 3rd respondent are unwarranted and against law. The learned Single
Judge however dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage itself and
concluded that it will be open to the petitioner to raise all the issues in the
47-A proceedings. Unfortunately the attention of the learned Single Judge
was not drawn to the recent pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Registrar of Assurances and another Vs. ASL VYAPAR Private Ltd. &
another (supra). Hence, we are forced to interfere with the order of the
learned Single Judge.
V.N.Devadoss vs The Chief Revenue Control Officer on 27 November, 2006
8. The Court upheld the view expressed in V.N.Devadass Vs. Chief
Revenue Control Office (supra) and answered the reference as follows:-
The Inspector General Of Registration vs Kanagalakshmi Ganaguru on 21 August, 2017
The decisions of this Court in the Inspector General of
Registration v. K.K.Thirumurugan, (Division Bench,) The
Inspector General of Registration v. Kanagalakshmi
Ganaguru, (Division Bench), Dr.R..Thiagarajan v.
N.C.Suresh Kumar vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 14 August, 2023
6. The said judgment was also followed by another learned Single
Judge of this Court in N.C.Suresh Kumar and another Vs. Inspector
General of Registration reported in 2023 (5) MLJ 176. Therefore, the
demand made by the Sub-Registrar that the petitioner must pay enhanced
stamp duty is not justified.