Disposed

Macrotech Developers Ltd. Mumbai v. State of Maharashtra Thr the Office of Principal Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Apr 2024WP/4028/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against an Appellate Authority order under Sections 32A/32B of the Maharashtra Stamp Act. The court found merits contentions were not considered, quashed the impugned order, and directed a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 18 January 2022 quashed; Respondent No.2 to re-hear parties and pass fresh order; deposit subject to further orders; no costs.

Macrotech Developers Ltd. Mumbai Vs State of Maharashtra… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

4-wp-4028-2024.doc

¶2

Nikita

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4028 OF 2024

¶5

NIKITA KAILAS DARADE

¶6

Digitally signed byNIKITA KAILAS DARADE Date: 2024.04.16 16:46:16 +0530

¶7

Macrotech Developers Ltd. Mumbai… Petitioner
V/s.
State of Maharashtra Through The
Office of Principal Secretary and Ors.… Respondents

¶8

Mr. Amogh Singh i/b Mr. Jeet Gandhi for the Petitioner.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, GP a/w Mr. R. S. Pawar, AGP for the
State/Respondent.

¶9

CORAM :AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶10

DATED:APRIL 16, 2024

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶13

2.Petitioner is challenging an order passed by the Appellate
Authority under the provisions of the Maharashtra Stamp Act,
1958 arising out of the proceedings under Section 32A and 32B of
the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958.

¶14

3.Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the petitioner
raised various contentions in relation to the nature of document
and the issue of limitation. However, the Appellate Authority has
considered the issue of limitation but has failed to consider the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner on merits.

¶15

¶16

4-wp-4028-2024.doc

¶17

4.In absence of consideration of merits of contentions raised
on behalf of the petitioner, the Appellate Authority could not have
dismissed the appeal.

¶18

5.Hence, the decision making process suffers from legal
infirmity. It is, therefore, necessary that the Appellate Authority
should reconsider the appeal of the petitioner afresh. Hence,
following order:

¶19

a) The impugned order dated 18th January 2022 passed
by respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside.

¶20

b) Respondent No 2 shall re-hear the parties and shall
pass fresh order in accordance with law.

¶21

c) The deposit made by the petitioner shall be subject to further orders passed by the Authorities under the Act.

¶22

6. The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶23

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶24

Macrotech Developers Ltd. Mumbai v. State of Maharashtra Thr the Office of Principal Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Macrotech Developers Ltd. Mumbai v. State of Maharashtra Thr the Office of Principal Secretary and 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

Gunwant Ananda Shinde Vs Tejnath Pandurang Surayawanshi Spl Recovery Officer and Ors.

Bhaskar Narhar Kulkarni and Ors. Vs Abhay Dadhe and Anr.

Ankush Sakharam Kadam vs Mangesh Shankar Sasane Chairman of Obc Welfare Foundation

Gti Infotel Private Limited vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited through Chairman and Managing Director

Suresh Gangadhar Nevkar Deceased Throu. Legal Heirs and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Sub Divisional Officer Junnar Ambergaon and Ors.

M/S. Truly Creative Developer Pvt. Ltd. Vs Abdul Samad Abdul Gafoor Bisti