Disposed

Siddhartha Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Thr Its Director Shri Jayesh N. Mehta v. Joint District Registrar and Collector of Stamp Class I and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Jul 2024WP/8561/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking acceptance and processing of a refund application for excess stamp duty without insisting on the original agreement. Court directed Respondent No.1 to forward it to Respondent No.2 within two weeks; Respondent No.2 to hear, process and decide in four weeks.

What the court decided

AI extract

Siddhartha Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Thr Its Director… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

6.wp.8561.24.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8561 OF 2024

¶3

Siddhartha Corporation Pvt Ltd

¶4

.. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Joint District Registrar and Collector of Stamp Class-I & Ors

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

Mr.Anuj Deshmukh i/b Acelegal , Advocates for the Petitione r.

¶9

Mr.A. I. Patel, Addl. G. P. , with Ms.V. R. Raje, AGP, for the State.

¶10

Digitally signed by ANJALI ANJALI TUSHAR TUSHAR ASWALE ASWALE Date: 2024.12.21 21:58:10 +0530

¶11

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &

¶12

SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ. DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2024

¶13

P. C.

¶14

The above Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ, order or direction to Respondent No.1 to accept the Refund Application dated 28^th February 2024 filed by the Petitioner for refund of excess stamp duty and process the same without insisting on the Original Agreement.

¶15

The learned AGP appearing on behalf of the Respondents, submitted that since the refund sought is more than Rs.25 Lakhs, the Application cannot be entertained by Respondent No.1, but will have to be entertained only by Respondent No.2.

¶16

Page 1 of 2 DECEMBER 18, 2024

¶17

Aswale

¶18

6.wp.8561.24.doc

¶19

Considering the statement made by the learned AGP, we dispose of the above Writ Petition by directing that Respondent No.1 shall forward to Respondent No.2 the Refund Application filed by the Petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. Once this is done, Respondent No.2 shall give a hearing to the Petitioner and thereafter process the said Application and pass an appropriate order. Respondent No.2, is requested to complete this exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the Application from Respondent No.1. We also direct that Respondent No.2 shall process the Refund Application without insisting on production of the Original Agreement.

¶20

The Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

Although we have disposed of the above Writ Petition, we now place it on Board for “reporting compliance” on 5^th February 2025.

¶22

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶23

[SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶24

Page 2 of 2 DECEMBER 18, 2024

¶25

Aswale

Siddhartha Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Thr Its Director Shri Jayesh N. Mehta v. Joint District Registrar and Collector of Stamp Class I and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Siddhartha Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Thr Its Director Shri Jayesh N. Mehta v. Joint District Registrar and Collector of Stamp Class I and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deven Yogesh Kanani vs Director General of Civil Aviation

Dhiraj Tanaji Dalvi vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Medical Officer and Registrar of Marriages, Hadapsar Mundwa Ward

Atul Lalit Godbole vs Union of India

Deven Yogesh Kanani vs Director General of Civil Aviation

Swarnali N Mahimkar vs Mr. Nitin S Mahimkar

Sakshi Sandeep Kakye vs Sandeep Tanu Kakye