Dismissed

Navratan Mal Jain S/O Late Shri Bahadurmal Jain v. Abhishek Mundara S/O Shri Om Prakash Mundara

Rajasthan HC17 Dec 2024CW/5297/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of this writ petition challenging an order permitting the plaintiff to file an application for determination and payment of deficit stamp duty on a disputed agreement before marking it as an exhibit in a specific performance suit.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; trial court order directing payment of deficit stamp duty upheld.

Navratan Mal Jain S/O Late Shri… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:51868]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5297/2019

¶4

Navratan Mal Jain S/o Late Shri Bahadurmal Jain, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Plot No. 361, Moti Nagar (West) Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Abhishek Mundara S/o Shri Om Prakash Mundara, R/o D- 30-B, Saraswati Marg, Banipark, Jaipur (Raj.) Proprietor Abhishek Enterprises, Jaipur.

¶8

Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Limited, Through Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. J P Goyal, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Sakshi Tiwari
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Jai Lodha
	Mr. Vikas Kabra

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶12

Order

¶13

17/12/2024

¶14

By way of this civil writ petition, the petitioner-defendant No. 1 (for short ‘the defendant’) has challenged the order dated 12.02.2019 passed by Additional District Judge No. 15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in civil suit No. 249/2012, whereby the said court has allowed the application under Order 13 Rule 4 CPC read with Section 35/39 Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 filed by the respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff) and denied the defendant to mark exhibit on the agreement dated 02.10.1999 on

[2024:RJ-JP:51868]

[CW-5297/2019]

(2 of 3)

the ground that the said agreement was unregistered and insufficiently stamped.

¶19

Learned counsel for the defendant submits that plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance and mandatory injunction against the defendants in which defendant filed copy of the agreement dated 02.10.1999 for which permission was granted by this Court to lead secondary evidence.

¶20

Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that plaintiff had filed an application before the trial Court under Order 13 Rule 4 CPC read with Section 35/39 Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 that the said agreement is insufficiently stamped, so, document should be impounded and sent to the Collector (Stamps) for determination of deficit stamp duty.

¶21

Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that trial Court vide order dated 10.04.2018 ordered to send the agreement 28.10.1999 filed by the plaintiff to the Collector (Stamps) for determination of deficit stamp duty which was paid by the plaintiff.

¶22

Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that as per the provision of the Section 5 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 when several instruments are used in single transaction, then stamp duty should be payable on the principal instrument.

¶23

Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that when the trial court had sent the disputed agreement dated 28.10.1999 filed by the plaintiff to the Collector (Stamps) for determination of stamp duty and the same was paid, there was no need to send the present agreement dated 02.10.1999 to the Collector (Stamps) for determination of deficit stamp duty as stamp duty of Rs. 200/-

[2024:RJ-JP:51868]

[CW-5297/2019]

(3 of 3)

is chargeable on the said agreement. So, order dated 12.02.2019 passed by the be set aside.

¶28

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant and submits that defendant had filed the present agreement dated 02.10.1999 and it is an admitted position that the said agreement was improperly stamped. So, as per the Stamp Act, the trial court rightly ordered for payment of deficit stamp duty. So, the present petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

¶29

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants and learned counsel for the plaintiff.

¶30

It is an admitted position that the said agreement dated 02.10.1999 was produced by the defendant and he wanted to mark exhibit on the same. In my considered opinion, the trial court had not committed any error in giving direction for payment of deficit stamp duty. So, the present petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.

¶31

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶32

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶33

Tahir/51

Navratan Mal Jain S/O Late Shri Bahadurmal Jain v. Abhishek Mundara S/O Shri Om Prakash Mundara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navratan Mal Jain S/O Late Shri Bahadurmal Jain v. Abhishek Mundara S/O Shri Om Prakash Mundara

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

Rampal Saini S/O Shri Khamla Vs Kanhaiyalal Pareek S/O Shivbhagwan

Smt Bhoori W/O Shri Ganesh D/O Shri Teja, Vs Hanuman S/O Shri Ghhaganial

Shri Mahaveer Nagar Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited Vs Mool Chand S/O Shri Ram Chandra

Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. Vs Ajay Kumar Luharuwala

Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. Vs Ajay Kumar Luharuwala

Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. Vs M/S Karishma Enterprises Krishna Enterprises