Allowed

Atlasgold Townships(India)Private Limited v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Nov 2014WP(C)/1769/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that a sale deed cannot be impounded under Section 33 of the Kerala Stamp Act merely because it was executed on stamp papers purchased from different sources. Non-compliance with Kerala Registration Manual Rule does not render the instrument 'not duly stamped' warranting impounding.

What did the court decide?

Imposition No.5(2)3581/12 set aside; respondents directed to release impounded documents to petitioner within two weeks.

Atlasgold Townships(India)Private Limited Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/14TH KARTHIKA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 1769 of 2013 (U) ---------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M/s.ATLASGOLD TOWNSHIPS(INDIA)PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR.SANIL.A.S AGED 31 YEARS, BUSINESS, S/O.A.N.SUKUMARAN RESIDING AT ATTIKUDI HOUSE, NEDUVANNOOR KARA CHOWWARA(P.O), PIN-683571, CHENGAMANADU VILLAGE ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-692035.

¶11

2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, DIRECTORATE OF REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT VANCHIYOOR.P.O, TRIVANDRUM-692035.

¶12

3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR(GENERAL) FOR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT SOUTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM, M.G.ROAD (P.O), KOCHI-682016.

¶13

4. THE SUB REGISTRAR, ANGAMALY SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, ANGAMALY(P.O) PIN-683572. 5. K.C.MADHU, THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE OF DISTRICT REGISTRAR(GENERAL)FOR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT SOUTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM, M.G.ROAD(P.O) KOCHI-682016. R5 BY ADV. SRI.GIGIMON ISSAC R5 BY ADV. SMT.SUMITHA K.S. R3 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 1769 of 2013 (U)

¶16

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶19

EXT-P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.IN5(2)3581/12 DATED 7/1/13 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶20

EXT-P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER 897 OF THE REGISTRATION MANUAL.

¶21

EXT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE FILE OF TAX ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE OF THE ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY DATED NIL

¶22

EXT P4 TRUE COPY OF the GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.1755/97 DTD 26/05/97 ISSUED BY THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT

¶23

EXT R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.R4 4377/13 DATED 06/03/2013 ISSUED BY the SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, ANGAMALY

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

¶25

EXHIBIT R3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) 84/2010/TD

¶26

EXHBIIT R3(b): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE ANGAMALY MUNICIPAL SECRETARY VIDE LETTER NO.R4 4377/2013 DATED 06.03.2013 TO the 3RD RESPONDENT

¶27

EXHBIIT R3(c): TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT EXECUTED

¶28

True Copy/

¶29

P A to Judge

¶30

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶31

=========================

¶32

W.P(C).No.1769 of 2013

¶33

============================ Dated this the 05^th day of November, 2014

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 proceeding of the District Registrar, Ernakulam.

¶36

Short facts relating to the writ petition are as follows:

¶37

Petitioner executed a sale deed in favour of one C.P Anilkumar. The document was presented for registration. The document appears to have executed in a stamp paper purchased from treasury and stamp vendors on different dates. Under Rule 36 of the Kerala Manufacture and Sale of Stamp Rules, 1960, document has to be executed in a stamp paper of single denomination. However, if the stamp papers are not available with the vendor, the vendor has to certify that a single stamp paper of the value required by the purchaser is not available under Sec. 891(i) of the Kerala Registration Manual. Since petitioner, without obtaining any certificate from the vendor, executed the stamp paper obtained from different source, the document executed by the petitioner has been treated as executed non-conforming to the Kerala Stamp Act and Rules and ordered to be impounded.

¶38

W.P(C).No.1769 of 2013

¶39

¶40

The question for consideration is whether for

¶41

non-compliance of the Kerala Registration Manual, the document can be impounded under Sec.33 of the Kerala Stamp Act.

¶42

It is apposite to quote Sec.33(2) of the Kerala Stamp

¶43

Act.

¶44

“For that purpose every such person shall examine every instrument so chargeable and so produced or coming before him, in order to ascertain whether it is stamped with a stamp of the value and description required by the law in force in the State when such instrument was executed or first executed”.

¶45

Chapter IV of the Stamp Act is relating to instrument not duly stamped. Sec.33 refers to the manner in which an instrument be

¶46

examined for the purpose of impounding the instrument.

¶47

Sec.2(e) defines duly stamped as follows:

¶48

“ 'duly stamped' as applied to an instrument means that the instrument bears an adhesive or impressed stamp of not less than the proper amount and that such stamp has been affixed or used in accordance with the law for th time being in force in the territories of the State of Kerala”.

¶49

Going by Sec.2(e), impounding under Sec.33(2) is possible when instrument bears stamp less than the proper amount as mentioned under the law. There is no dispute as to the value of stamp drawn out in the instrument. The only question is whether

¶50

W.P(C).No.1769 of 2013

¶51

¶52

purchasing stamp paper from different source would entail in treating the instrument as not duly stamped under the law. The power of impounding is referable under Sec.33 of Chapter IV. Chapter IV cannot be invoked except to the situation referred in Sec.33. This instrument cannot be treated as instrument not duly stamped. Any non-compliance of Kerala Registration Manual under Sec.891(i) does not warrant any action of impounding under Sec.33 of the Stamp Act. In view of the above, Ext.P1 is set aside. There shall be a direction to the respondents to release the documents to the petitioner within a period of two weeks.

¶53

Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.

¶56

Sbna

Atlasgold Townships(India)Private Limited v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atlasgold Townships(India)Private Limited v. State of Kerala

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

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Vs Benny P.L.

Vasudevan Pillai Vs the District Collector, Alappuzha

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs Consumer Disputes Redressal

V.Ananthalakshmi Vs Sri.D.T.S Rao

Abdulla Shabeer Vs the State of Kerala

Gopakumar Vs State of Kerala