Writ petition under Article 226(2) challenging the lower court's order imposing deficit stamp duty and penalty. Court dismissed the plea that the lower court erred by revisiting its own order, holding the petitioner must pay duty based on recitals.
Petitioner directed to pay deficit stamp duty of ₹44,100/- and 10x penalty; Writ Petition dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 20850/2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
MR. TOUFIK AHMED AGED 53 YEARS S/O MOHAMMED YUSUF NO. 140, QUBA MASJID ROAD OPP. CITIZEN SCHOOL UDAYAGIRI, MYSURU - 570 019.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH B S, ADVOCATE)
AND :
2
K.V. LAYOUT, 4TH STAGE JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 004.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SUNIL M.V., ADVOCATE FOR C/R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN OS.NO. 133/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJUNGUD, AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS ON IA DATED. 28.09.2021 UNDER SECTION 151 CPC, DATED. 18.09.2021, REGARDING DUTY AND PENALTY PAYABLE IF ANY ON THE DOCUMENT DATED 06.01.2020 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E; ALTERNATIVELY, TO SEND DOCUMENT DATED 06.01.2020 TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION 37(2) OF THE STAMP ACT, TO COLLECT DUTY AND PENALTY.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R
The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No.133/2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjangud [for short, ' the civil Court ']. The petitioner has impugned the civil Court's order dated 28.09.2021. The civil Court by the impugned order has called upon the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs.44,100/-
3
and ten times penalty thereof on the agreement to sale dated 06.01.2020.
Sri. Manjunath B.S., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the civil Court, on an earlier occasion by its order dated 24.11.2020, impounded the subject sale agreement calling upon the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs.500/- and ten times thereof as penalty. However, on an application by the respondents, the civil Court has revisited its earlier order by the impugned order. This, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits would be irregular and error apparent inasmuch as the civil Court has sat in appeal over its earlier order.
However, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner, given the undisputable recitals in the sale agreement dated 06.01.2020, must be called upon to pay the deficit
4
stamp duty because the consideration mentioned in the agreement is Rs.9 lakhs.
The petitioner's grievance as canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is considered in the light of the settled law that the Court while impounding a document for being insufficiently stamped, must necessarily consider the recitals in the document and decide on the deficit stamp duty and if it is of the opinion that the document is not sufficiently stamped, it must call upon the concerned to pay the deficit stamp duty and ten times penalty thereof and make a reference as contemplated under Section 37[1] of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 with further liberty to the concerned to avail remedy under Section 38 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.
This Court, when the grievance is considered in the light of this settled law, is not persuaded to interfere
5
with the impugned order on the ground that the civil
Court has sat in appeal over its earlier order.
The petition therefore, stands dismissed.
SD/JUDGE
AN/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the lower court's order where the lower court revisited its own earlier order regarding deficit stamp duty.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr. Toufik Ahmed
Anand Raj M R
M.A. Somanath
M.R. Vijaykumar
B. M. Shyam Prasad
AN/-
JUDGE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
