Ramani v. Icici Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
Review petition challenging an order directing payment of stamp duty and penalty under the Kerala Stamp Act. Court held Section 34(a) direction not maintainable for review if party cannot pay; instead, document must be sent to Collector under Sections 33, 37, and 38.
What did the court decide?
Review petition disposed of by quashing the direction under Section 34(a); parties directed to follow procedure under Sections 33(1), 37(2), and 38(2) of the Kerala Stamp Act.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1943
RP NO. 639 OF 2021
OP(C) 2361/2013 DATED 30.7.2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS IN THE OP(C)
- 1 RAMANI
AGED 66 YEARS
W/O. LATE REGHUVARAN K.K., RESIDING AT SREEHARI ARACKAL HOUSE, KANIYAMPUZHA ROAD, EROOR DESOM, NADAMA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682 306.
2 Ms.DRISYA AGED 38 YEARS
D/O. LATE REGHUVARAN K.K., RESIDING AT SREEHARI ARACKAL HOUSE, KANIYAMPUZHA ROAD, EROOR DESOM, NADAMA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682 306.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition is maintainable to quash a direction to pay stamp duty and penalty under Section 34(a) of the Kerala Stamp Act when the petitioner claims inability to pay.
Whether the court should have forwarded the document to the Collector under Sections 33(1), 37(2), and 38(2) of the Kerala Stamp Act for stamping and duty collection instead of enforcing payment of pe
Whether the impugned order directing payment of deficient stamp duty and penalty is liable to be reviewed in light of Peteti Subba Rao v. Anumala S.Narendra.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Ramani
- petitioner
Drisyha
- petitioner
Athullya Heeraben
- respondent
ICICI Bank
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court