Bombay High Court
Shri Ajay S/O Visandas Kamnani And ... vs Government Of Maharashtra, ... on 11 April, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
J-wp3069.14.odt 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No.3069 OF 2014
1. Shri Ajay s/o. Visandas Kamnani,
Aged about 40 years,
Occupation : Business.
2. Shri Manoj s/o. Visandas Kamnani,
Aged about 37 years,
Occupation : Business.
3. Smt. Monika w/o. Ajay Kamnani,
Aged about 36 years,
Occupation : Business.
4. Smt. Bhavna w/o. Manoj Kamnani,
Aged about 35 years,
Occupation : Business.
Petitioners 1 to 4 all resident of
Honey Ritika Apartment,
Shastri Nagar Chowk,
Garoba Maidan, Nagpur. : PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
1. Government of Maharashtra,
through the Collector of Stamps,
Nagpur,Civil Lines, Nagpur.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of
Registration and Stamps, Nagpur,
3rd Floor, New Administrative Building,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3. The Sub-Registrar, Nagpur-6,
Near Corporation Office, Mahal,
Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:51:59 :::
J-wp3069.14.odt 2/3
Respondent No.4 added 4. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority,
(Inspector General of Stamps),
as per Court's order
dt.15.2.2015. Pune. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr. Kunal Nalamwar, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. S.B. Ahirkar, Asstt. Government Pleader for the Respondents.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
th
DATE : 11
APRIL, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
2. It is clear from the application (Annexure F, at Page 38)
filed by the petitioners that it was application made for refund of
excess stamp duty. Even though no section is mentioned in the
application, the prayer of the application is sufficient to point
towards the relevant section of the Maharashtra Stamp Act (in
short, "said Act"). This section is Section 44. So the application
ought to have been treated as filed under Section 44 of the
respondents. Unfortunately, the application was treated as an
appeal and the result was passing of an erroneous order which has
been challenged in this case. Section 44 confers power upon the
J-wp3069.14.odt 3/3
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority or any other authority to
whom the power has been delegated to consider such application as
the one involved in this petition. The matter will have to be
remanded back to the respondent No.4 for exercising jurisdiction
under Section 44 of the said Act and decide the said application
thereunder in accordance with law.
3. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed.
4. The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside.
5. The matter is remanded back to the respondent No.4 for
deciding the application for refund of excess stamp duty dated
22.2.2012 by treating the same as the application filed under
Section 44 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act in accordance with law.
6. The application shall be decided in accordance with law
after granting hearing to the petitioners within two months from
the date of appearance of the petitioner before respondent No.4.
7. The petitioners shall appear before the respondent No.4
on 2nd May, 2016 at 11.00 a.m.
8. Rule is made absolute in these terms. No costs.
JUDGE
okMksns
