Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Article 63 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 54 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 105 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Himalaya House Co. Ltd. Bombay vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority on 1 February, 1972
To test these submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be necessary to go through the instrument as it is settled law that for the purposes of stamp duty, the nature of transfer must be assessed upon an examination of the terms of the instrument as a whole. Any reference to some other earlier transaction without incorporating the terms and conditions thereof in the instrument, no scrutiny would be relevant. No importance can be given to the nomenclature of the document. Reference may be made to the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Himalaya House Co. Ltd., Bombay vs. the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority reported in 1972 (1) SCC 726 in paragraph '10' which reads as under:-
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Byramjee Jeejeebhoy (P) Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 April, 1963
Reference may also be made to Byramjee Jeejeebhoy (P) Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1965 Supreme Court 590, wherein the Apex Court formulated the principles for determination of the question as to whether the deed would be a lease or grant for transfer of a right to enjoy land. Relevant paragraph '8' is quoted as under:-
M/S Residents Welfare ... vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 15 April, 2009
As far as the application of the judgment of the Apex Court in Residents Welfare Association (supra) is concerned, in the said case, there was no dispute or doubt that the demised land was transferred vide lease deed executed by Noida in favour of the cooperative societies and its members. It was admitted position that the lessor namely Noida authorities had entered into the lease agreement with the cooperative societies and their members being lessees and the sub-lessees; respectively. The sub-lessees further entered into the agreement with the assignees (members of the appellant association therein). The deed of assignment in favour of the members of appellant association was termed as assignment of lease hold rights after considering the terms and conditions of the lease deed executed between Noida as lessor and the cooperative society and its members as lessees and sub-lessees. It was then held that as under the lease deed, such a clause was there wherein the NOIDA will have a right over the buildings and the appurtenants on the land at the time of re-entry, in case of any failure of the sub-lessee to follow the terms and conditions of the lease deed. A right of reversion to the land and appurtenants thereto including the building, on the termination or expiry of the lease had been reserved. It was thus held that the document of transfer was the assignment of lease and not an outright sale of the land and its appurtenants. Such is not the condition in the present case, neither the terms of the lease has been mentioned nor the right of reversion to the lessor had been reserved in the deed in question, the ratio of abovenoted judgment would not be available to the benefit of the petitioner herein.
1