Quashed

M/S Aurangabad Electricals Ltd. Aurangabad and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Ando Rs

Bombay HC29 Nov 2011WP/5777/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court stayed recovery proceedings under Section 33-A of the Bombay Stamp Act initiated by the Sub-Registrar without a hearing. The court directed the Sub-Registrar to hear the petitioner before passing orders on the disputed stamp duty amount.

What did the court decide?

Stay on recovery; direction to Sub-Registrar to hear petitioner within two months before passing final order.

M/S Aurangabad Electricals Ltd. Aurangabad… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 W.P.No.5777/11

¶2

UNREPORTED

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

¶4

BOMBAY

¶5

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.5777 OF 2011.

¶7

1. M/s Aurangabad Electricals Ltd.,
through Mr.Premchand S/o
Parasram Agrawal, Age 52 yrs.
Occ.Service, R/o CMD Office,
Gut No.65, Village Chitegaon,
Tq.Paithan, Dist.Aurangabad.

¶8

2. M/s OMR Bagla Automotive
Systems India Ltd.,
Gut No.217, Village Chitegaon,
Tq.Paithan, Dist.Aurangabad,
through Mr.Ajaykumar S/o
Dnyaneshwar Tannu, Age 49 Yrs.,
Occ.Service.

¶9

... Petitioners.

¶10

Versus

¶11

1. State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary, Revenue
Ministry, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.

¶12

2. Deputy Inspector General,
& Controller of Stamps,
Aurangabad.

¶13

3. Joint District Registrar/
Collector of Stamps,
District Registrar/Collector
Office, Aurangabad.

¶14

4. Sub-Registrar, Paithan,
Sub-Registrar's Office,
Paithan, Dist.Aurangabad. ... Respondents.

¶15

2 W.P.No.5777/11

¶16

Mr.R.F.Totala, advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.K.B.Choudhari, Addl.Govt. Pleader for the
State.

¶17

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

¶18

 Date : 29.11.2011.

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶20

1.Heard.

¶21

2.Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With
the consent of the parties, the petition is taken
up for final hearing.

¶22

3.The present petitioner impugns the
order dated 13.7.2011, issued by the Sub-
Registrar, Paithan.

¶23

4.Vide the impugned order the petitioner
is directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,04,22,183/-
(Rupees one crore four lacs twenty two thousand
one hundred eighty three). The same is passed
purportedly U/s 33-A of the Bombay Stamp Act.

¶24

3 W.P.No.5777/11

¶25

5.Mr.Choudhari,learnedAddl.Govt.

¶26

Pleader has clarified that the same is the notice
and before claiming the amount, opportunity of
hearing was given but the petitioner did not
avail. Mr.Totala, learned counsel denies this
fact. It is submitted that petitioners shall be
given opportunity of hearing. In light of that,
no dispute remains in the petition. Even
otherwise, Section 33-A of the Bombay Stamp Act,
contemplates that the original instrument is to
be called after giving the party an opportunity
of being heard and reasons are to be recorded. In
the present case, the said opportunity of hearing
does not appear to have been given.

¶27

6.In view of above, I pass the following

¶28

order :

¶29

(a)The recovery as contemplated in the

¶30

impugned order/notice dated 13.7.2011 shall not
be made till the controversy is decided U/s 33-A
after giving an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner. The petitioner shall appear before
the Sub-Registrar, Paithan on 15.12.2011 and
after hearing the petitioner, the Sub-Registrar,

¶31

4 W.P.No.5777/11

¶32

Paithan shall pass necessary orders.The parties
will be governed by the orders passed thereafter.

¶33

(b)The said proceedings shall be decided

¶34

within two (2) months.

¶35

(c)Rule accordingly made absolute in above
terms. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.

¶36

 (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶37

asp/office/wp5777.11

M/S Aurangabad Electricals Ltd. Aurangabad and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Ando Rs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Aurangabad Electricals Ltd. Aurangabad and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Ando Rs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dena Bank through Its Branch Manager Vs Vindhyawasini Medical and General Stores and Ors.

Janardhan Santram Patil Vs Babasaheb Hariba Gavde and Anr.

Manikchand Bansilal Badjate Vs Lahu Rambhau Dukare

Govind Yadavrao Hiwrale Vs Yadav Pundalik Hiwrale and Anr.

Vithal Sopan Gunjal and Ors. Vs Rajanibai Kamlakar Deshmukh and Ors.

Mukunda Rama Tipparse Vs Mahajan Gunaji Chitale and Ors.