Disposed

Jsw Steel (Salav) Ltd. (Formerly Known as Welspun Maxsteel Ltd.) v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC7 Feb 2018WP/537/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, exercising original appellate jurisdiction, disposed of a writ petition. The court directed the Appellate Authority to decide an appeal within six months and stayed the demand of stamp duty during the pendency of that appeal.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 to decide the appeal within six months; Respondents not to recover stamp duty during the appeal's pendency.

Jsw Steel (Salav) Ltd. (Formerly Known as Welspun… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

Megha 911_wpl_276_2018.doc

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.276 OF 2018

¶4

Jsw Steel (Salav) Ltd. …Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr. S.B. Talekar with Ms Pinky Jessaja and Mr. Jitendra Motwani i/b. M/s. Talekar and Associates for the Petitioner. Mr. H.S. Venegaonkar, Additional GP with Mr. T.V. Dhotre for the State.

¶9

CORAM : RANJIT MORE AND

¶10

SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

¶11

DATED: 7^th FEBRUARY, 2018.

¶12

P.C.:-

¶13

Mr. Talekar, having taken instructions from his client makes

¶14

a statement that the Petitioner at this stage does not wish to press the

¶15

relief claimed in prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c). He, therefore states that at this stage, the Petitioner would be satisfied, if the Appellate Authority is directed to decide their appeal expeditiously and if the stamp duty as per the order of the Respondent No.3 is not demanded during the pendency of the said appeal.

¶16

Mr. Venegaonkar, the learned Additional Government

¶17

Megha

¶18

1/2

¶19

Megha 911_wpl_276_2018.doc

¶20

Pleader, having taken instructions from his client submits that he has no objection if the Appellate Authority is directed to decide the Petitioner's appeal expeditiously. He also states that during the pendency of the appeal they will not insist to deposit/payment of stamp duty as per the order of the Respondent No.3. Statements made by the counsels for the respective parties are accepted.

¶21

In the light of above, we dispose of this Petition in following

¶22

terms:

¶23

(i) The Respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of

¶24

the Petitioner's appeal under Section 53(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶25

(ii) During the pendency of the said appeal, the Respondents shall not recover or demand the amount of stamp duty from the Petitioner as per the order dated 21^st January, 2016 passed by the Respondent No.3 in Proceedings No.491 of 2009.

¶26

(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

¶27

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶28

Megha

¶29

2/2

Jsw Steel (Salav) Ltd. (Formerly Known as Welspun Maxsteel Ltd.) v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jsw Steel (Salav) Ltd. (Formerly Known as Welspun Maxsteel Ltd.) v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

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

Satyawan Jayram Kadlag Vs Shri. Babhutmal Gomraj Oswal

Jayram Patilbhuva Kadlag (Decd) through Heir Satyan Jayram Kadlag Vs the Collector of Pune and Ors.

M/S. Magma Agro Products Private Limitd Thr. Chairman and Managing Director Shri. C. Gaikwad Vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Thr.Chief Executive Officer, Shri.Sanjay Sethi and

Pushpangadan Mangari Vs the Registrar of Companies and Another

The Tata Power Company Limited and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Javed Gulab Didbag and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.