A company sought refund of value of unused stamp papers purchased for sale deeds that were not executed. The Sub Collector rejected the refund application by a non-speaking order. The High Court set aside the order and directed fresh reconsideration after hearing the petitioner, in light of V.K.Sundaram.
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.
WP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2017
PETITIONER/S:
M/S.NEPTUNE REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE, 150, EMBASSY POINT, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001., REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, M.F.SAYED.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.NARAYANAN (PARUR) SRI.DENNY DEVASSY S.M.PREM K.NARAYANAN(N-48)
RESPONDENT/S:
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2017
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
W.P.(C.) No. 1691 of 2017
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2024
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :
“i) Call for the records leading to Exhibit-P2 refund application and Exhibit-P3 order and quash Exhibit-P3 order as arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal and unconstitutional, by a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction; ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, compelling the respondents to consider Exhibit-P2 representation for relief under Section 47 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, fixing a time limit; iii) Issue such other reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to grant considering the facts and circumstances of the case.” [sic]
under the Companies Act. It is submitted that the company had
WP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2017 3
occasion to enter into agreements for conveyance of properties situated in Kakkanad Village. It is also submitted that the company purchased several parcels of land and got sale deeds executed and registered in its favour in different intervals. It is submitted that an agreement for sale with respect to 14.16 ares in Re-survey No. 570/163 in Kanayannur Taluk, 8.63 ares of in Re-Survey No. 722/2010 in the same village and another extent of 0.13 ares in Re-survey No. 570/41 in the very same village was executed. The performance of the agreements were got delayed for several reasons stated by the vendors is the submission. At last, the vendors became ready for executing the sale deeds. Accordingly, the stamp papers worth Rs.14,26,600/dated 29.01.2008, Rs.15,02,000/- dated 14.09.2007 and Rs.23,96,200/- dated 29.01.2008 were purchased by the petitioner. The payments were acknowledged by three receipts is the submission. By the time sale deeds were to be registered, the vendors informed with regard to some problems regarding
WP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2017 4
the Power of Attorney is the submission. In fact, the documents were written in stamp papers and forwarded to Bangalore as per the directives of the vendors and the vendors returned the documents and assured that it could be registered as soon as on clearance of legal obstacles. But the petitioner was not prepared to wait indefinitely is the submission. Hence, with the consent of both, the petitioner submitted an application dated 07.07.2015 for allowance by way of refund of the value of stamp spoiled under Sec. 47 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 before the 1st respondent is the submission. The 1st respondent forwarded it to the 2nd respondent for taking a decision. But, without hearing the petitioner, the 2nd respondent rejected the application summarily is the submission. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court and this Court disposed the writ petition setting aside the same granting the petitioner to file a separate representation claiming the benefit of the proviso (a) under subsection 3 of Section 48 of the Kerala Stamp Act. Ext.P1 is the
WP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2017 5
judgment. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 representation. The petitioner also relied the judgment of this Court in V.K.Sundaram and anr. v. Tahsildar, Palghat and anr. [1973 KHC 341]. In Ext.P1 judgment also, the above decision was referred and this Court directed to consider the representation in the light of the above judgment. The grievance of the petitioner is that the directions were not complied. It is submitted that without giving adequate opportunity and without considering the judgment of this Court, rejected Ext.P2 representation. Ext.P3 is the order. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.
WP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2017 6
down in the above judgment. The Sub-Collector passed Ext.P3 order with a single line that the reason claiming for delay for submission of the application is not justified. I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P3 is not a speaking order. Now, the petitioner is ready to produce the original spoiled stamp papers. If that is the case, I am of the considered opinion that the 2nd respondent should reconsider the matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to a representative of the petitioner.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :
the light of Ext.P2 judgment, after giving an opportunity of hearing to a representative of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
WP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2017
7
the dictum laid down by this Court in V.K.Sundaram and
anr. v. Tahsildar, Palghat and anr. [1973 KHC 341]
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
WP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2017
8
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1691/2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2015 IN WPC NO.25904/2015
P2 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 28.12.2015 GIVEN TO RESPONDENTS P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS G-6571/2015 DATED 22.4.2016 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Sub Collector's non-speaking rejection of the refund application for spoiled stamp papers under Section 47 of the Kerala Stamp Act should be set aside and reconsidered.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
V.K.Sundaram and anr. v. Tahsildar, Palghat and anr.Relied on
[1973 KHC 341]
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S.Neptune Real Estate Private Limited
The District Collector Ernakulam
Sub Collector, Fort Kochi
P.V.Kunhikrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
