This order directs the respondent to consider the petitioner's application for refund of stamp duty, mandating a decision within eight weeks.
Directed the respondent to consider the refund application and decide it within eight weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~60
CITIUS REAL ESTATE (P) LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Parvinder Chauhan, Advocate.
versus
COLLECTOR OF STAMPS/SDM (HQ) ..... Respondent Through: Mr Gautam Narayan, ASC for GNCTD with Ms Shivani Vij, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R
% 07.12.2018
“(b) After perusing the records which may be summoned by this Hon’ble Court in terms of prayer (a) above, issue a writ, direction, order in the nature of mandamus there by directing the respondent to refund the Stamp Duty paid against E-Stamp paper No. IN- DL94299245494081N dated 18.04.2015;
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
DECEMBER 07, 2018 MK
1 issue framed by the court
whether the respondent is directed to consider the applicant's refund application under the relevant decision of this Court
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr Poornima Advani & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.Explained¶16
Dr Poornima Advani & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.: W.P.(C) 9014/2017
Dr Poornima Advani & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.Explained¶17
Dr Poornima Advani & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. ( supra )
CITIUS REAL ESTATE (P) LIMITED
COLLECTOR OF STAMPS/SDM (HQ)
Vibhu Bakrhu
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
