Allowed

Samir Narain Bhojwani v. State of Maharashtra and 2 Others

Bombay HC16 Apr 2018WP/2379/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging fixation of stamp duty was allowed. Court set aside impugned orders, remanded matter to Collector of Stamps for independent adjudication within six weeks, without examining merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 2nd August, 2016, 6th October, 2016, and 1st July, 2017 quashed and set aside. Matter remanded to Collector of Stamps, Andheri for independent adjudication within six weeks.

Samir Narain Bhojwani Vs State of Maharashtra and 2… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

60 wp 2379.17.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2379 OF 2017

¶4

Samir Narain Bhojwani …...Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. …...Respondents

¶5

Dr. Milind Sathe, senior advocate along with Mr. D. V. Deokar, Mr. P. Modi, Ms. Anikita Roy i/b. Parimal K. Shroff and Co., advocates for the petitioner.

¶6

Mrs. Jyoti Chavan, AGP for the State.

¶7

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT.SADHANA JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 16^th APRIL, 2018.

¶8

P. C. :

¶9

Both respondent Nos.2 and 3 while fixing the stamp-duty did not consider the petitioner's contentions. Some justification for the same is given in the affidavit-in-reply filed on their behalf. However, it is a settled position in law that the reasons cannot be supplied by tendering affidavit after filing the petition. In the above circumstances, Ms. Chavan, learned AGP fairly stated that the impugned order be setaside and the matter be remanded to the respondent No.3- Collector of Stamps, Andheri, for reconsideration.

¶10

In view of the concession given by the learned AGP, we allow the petition. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 2^nd August, 2016

¶11

Shubhada S Kadam 1/2

¶12

60 wp 2379.17.doc

¶13

and 6^th October, 2016 passed by the Collector of Stamps, and order dated 1^st July, 2017 passed by the Additional Controller of Stamps, are quashed and set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.3-Collector of Stamps, Andheri. The respondent No.3 shall adjudicate the stamp-duty in respect of the subject transaction after hearing all concerned independently on its own merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶14

It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the matter and all rights and contentions of the respective parties are kept expressly open to be agitated before the concerned authority.

¶15

4. The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶16

(SMT. SADHANA JADHAV, J.) [RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶17

Shubhada S Kadam 2/2

Samir Narain Bhojwani v. State of Maharashtra and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samir Narain Bhojwani v. State of Maharashtra and 2 Others

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

Prashant Aditya Shukla and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Anand Joshi and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra through the Government Pleader and Ors. Vs Tata Projects Ltd.

Mr. Javed Akhtar Mohd. Hussain Siddiqui and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Ld. Govt. Pleader and 8 Ors.

Tower Vision India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Sushila Dattatraya Lokhande Vs State of Maharashtra through the Dept. of Urban Development and Ors.