Momin Zulfikar Kasam v. State of Maharashtra through R F Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Jun 2025WP/6110/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of stamp appeal solely because an earlier appeal was withdrawn held erroneous; withdrawal was with liberty to file fresh appeal (application dated 30.08.2023; withdrawal permitted by order dated 15.03.2024); Additional Controller of Stamps, Maharashtra; impugned order dated 27.01.2025 quashed and set aside; writ petition allowed; matter remanded for decision on merits; no merits considered in dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27.01.2025 quashed and set aside; matter remanded to respondent No.2 (Additional Controller of Stamps) to decide the petitioner's subsequent appeal on merits, as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law. ¶¶15

Momin Zulfikar Kasam vs State of Maharashtra through R F Dept and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2 (Additional Controller of Stamps) erred in dismissing the petitioner's subsequent appeal solely on the ground that an earlier appeal by him had been withdrawn, when the earlier withdrawal was permitted with express liberty to file a fresh appeal, entitling the petitioner to have the subsequent appeal considered on merits.

¶¶8

Court's answer

Since the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the earlier appeal in terms of his application dated 30.08.2023 and the prayer made therein (liberty to file a fresh appeal with further documents for better presentation), the subsequent appeal ought to have been entertained on merits by respondent No.2; by failing to do so, respondent No.2 committed an obvious error and the impugned order deserved to be set aside.

¶¶14

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 is quashed and set aside.

¶¶15

Key takeaways

The matter is remanded to respondent No.2 with a direction to decide the subsequent appeal filed by the petitioner on merits, as expeditiously as possible, and in accordance with law.ratio¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Manish Pitale, J.; 10 June 2025), Writ Petition No. 6110 of 2025, Momin Zulfikar Kasam v. State of Maharashtra: The petitioner's appeal before respondent No.2, the Additional Controller of Stamps, was dismissed by order dated 27.01.2025 solely on the ground that an earlier appeal by the very same petitioner had been withdrawn, with no observation on the merits of the grounds raised. The Court noted that the earlier appeal had been permitted to be withdrawn by order dated 15.03.2024 pursuant to the petitioner's application dated 30.08.2023, which expressly sought withdrawal for better presentation along with liberty to file a fresh appeal with further relevant documents and averments. The learned AGP for the State did not dispute this chronology. Holding that respondent No.2 committed an obvious error in failing to entertain the subsequent appeal on merits, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 27.01.2025, and remanded the matter to respondent No.2 to decide the subsequent appeal on merits, as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law.

¶1

13_WP6110_25.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.6110 OF 2025

¶4

Momin Zulfikar Kasam … Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and others … Respondents

¶5

Mr. Pradeep J. Thorat a/w. Ms. Aditi S. Naikare for Petitioner. Ms. S. R. Crasto, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 - State.

¶6

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : JUNE 10, 2025

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

. This writ petition challenges an order dated 27.01.2025 passed by respondent No.2 - Additional Controller of Stamps, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground that an earlier appeal by the very same petitioner had been withdrawn. There are no observations made on the merits of the matter in the impugned order, thereby showing that the grounds raised in the appeal were not considered at all.

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioner invites attention of this Court to an application moved in the earlier appeal seeking to withdraw the earlier appeal specifically for better presentation of the same as certain relevant documents were not filed with the said appeal. In fact, it was highlighted that the petitioner in the said application specifically sought liberty to file a fresh appeal if the prayer for withdrawing the said appeal was to be granted. It is the contention of the petitioner that in view of the above, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the respondent No.2 for consideration of the appeal on merits.

¶10

MINALSANDIPPARAB Digitally signed byMINAL SANDIPPARABDate: 2025.06.1111:10:33 +0530

¶11

1/2

¶12

13_WP6110_25.doc

¶13

Ms. Crasto, learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 could not dispute the factual description given in the present petition about the chronology of events and the specific statements made on behalf of the petitioner in the application seeking withdrawal of the earlier appeal.

¶14

It is in this backdrop that this Court has considered the impugned order. The order appears to be erroneous in the light of the fact that the earlier order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 specifically recorded that the appeal was being permitted to be withdrawn as per the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. The said prayer was reflected in the application dated 30.08.2023 filed in the earlier appeal, wherein the petitioner, in paragraph 2, specifically stated that he desired to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file a fresh appeal along with further relevant documents and averments and for better presentation of the appeal. Since the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the earlier appeal in terms of the said application and the prayer made therein, the subsequent appeal filed by the petitioner ought to have been entertained on merits by the respondent No.2. By failing to do so, the respondent No.2 has committed an obvious error and hence the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

¶15

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.01.2025 is quashed and set aside.

¶16

The matter is remanded to the respondent No.2 with a direction to decide the subsequent appeal filed by the petitioners on merits, as expeditiously as possible, as also in accordance with law.

¶17

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶18

Minal Parab

¶19

2/2

Momin Zulfikar Kasam v. State of Maharashtra through R F Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Momin Zulfikar Kasam v. State of Maharashtra through R F Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Farida a Wahab Hakim vs Brahmadeodada Mane Co-Op Bank Ltd. Throu. Its Chairman and Anr.

Sharadadevi Duryodhan Ranavare vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Tehsildar

Jimmy Talakchand Savla and Anr. vs Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (Agrc) and Ors.

Tiktok Ltd. Mr Faheem Ahmad Constituted Attorney of Tiktok Ltd. vs the Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai

Shri Bapu Bhagwan Tondale and Anr. vs Shri Bharat Vasant Thite and Anr.

Bibi Sumayya Wajid Shaikh vs Mohamadin Education Society Throu. Its President and Ors.