Disposed

Pariwar Real Estate Firm Thr .Its Partners Dattatraya K Pitale v. Civil Judge, Sr. DN.-5, Nagpur and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Dec 2012WP/2031/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order directing deposit of deficit stamp duty. The Court, noting the pending appeal before the Appellate Authority, directed the Authority to decide the appeal within one month from 25/12/2012. Pending payment of duty, further proceedings in the trial were stayed.

What did the court decide?

Appellate Authority directed to decide appeal within one month from 25/12/2012; petitioner to deposit duty thereafter; trial stayed pending payment.

Pariwar Real Estate Firm Thr .Its Partners… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1/3

¶2

1812wp2031.12.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2031 OF 2012

¶5

(Pariwar Real Estate Firm through Lrs. Vs. Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Nagpur & others)

¶6

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶7

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶8

Shri M. R. Joharapurkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A. M. Deshpande, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 11. Shri M. M. Bandebuche, Adv. for respondent Nos. 4 & 9.

¶9

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J . DATED : DECEMBER 18 , 2012.

¶10

By this petition the petitioner impugns an

¶11

order passed by the trial Court on 14/3/2012 directing the petitioner to lead further evidence on the next date without fail by depositing the deficit stamp duty as determined by the Collector of Stamps.

¶12

It is the case of the petitioner that being aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector of Stamps, computing the stamp duty payable by the petitioner on the document sought to be impounded, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Maharashtra State), Pune. Since the appeal was pending, the petitioner desired that the trial Court

¶13

2/3

¶14

1812wp2031.12.odt

¶15

should adjourn the matter for leading evidence as the petitioner wanted to prove the said document.

¶16

When this matter was heard by this Court on 26/4/2012, the learned Counsel for the petitioner made a statement that the stamp duty, as assessed by the Appellate Authority, would be paid by the petitioner without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and the trial may proceed thereafter. On this statement being made, this Court issued notice of final disposal to the respondents on this limited issue and stayed further proceedings in the trial.

¶17

It appears that the Appellate Authority had not decided the appeal filed by the petitioner till the last date of hearing and, therefore, this Court had asked the learned Assistant Government Pleader to make a statement as to when the Appellate Authority would decide the appeal.

¶18

It is informed to this Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the Appellate Authority is on an election duty and would resume the duty after 24/12/2012. If this is so, the Appellate

¶19

3/3

¶20

1812wp2031.12.odt

¶21

Authority is directed to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of one month from 25/12/2012. The petitioner should deposit the amount determined by the Appellate Authority towards stamp duty within a period of three weeks from the said decision without prejudice to its right to challenge the decision of the Appellate Authority. After the deficit stamp duty is paid, the trial Court should proceed with the trial and the petitioner may be permitted to lead further evidence.

¶22

The Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

¶23

Steno-copy is granted on request.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

wwl

Pariwar Real Estate Firm Thr .Its Partners Dattatraya K Pitale v. Civil Judge, Sr. DN.-5, Nagpur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pariwar Real Estate Firm Thr .Its Partners Dattatraya K Pitale v. Civil Judge, Sr. DN.-5, Nagpur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raja Khanderao Deshmukh (Palshikar) Vs State of Maharashtra,through Its Secretary, Department of Industries, Energy and Labour and 4 Other

Rajesh S/O Nashiket Dongre Vs the Commissioner, State Information Commission and Ors.

M/S Jld Cement Ltd. Thr. Its Auth. Signatory Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Rohidas S/O Kashiram Rathod Vs Additional Collector, Akola and Ors.

Avinash S/O Balkrishna Panganti Vs Sau. Pranoti W/O Avinash Panganti

Gandhinagar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Thr. Its President Vs Navnath Mahajan and Anr.