Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S. Vinod Ventures And Resorts ... vs Collector Stampcircle Jodhpur ... on 1 December, 2021
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1204/2018
M/s. Vinod Ventures And Resorts Private Limited (Formally
Known As Jaitex Exports Private Limited), E-633, MIA Ind. Phase
Basani, Jodhpur - 342008 Raj., Through Director Mr. Vinod
Singhvi S/o Ummed Mal Singhvi, Age 44 Years, B/c Oswal, R/o 3
Pal Link Road, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Collector (Stamp) Circle Jodhpur, Collectorate Campus,
Jodhpur.
2. Sub-Registrar First, Jodhpur, Collectorate Campus,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhanesh Saraswat
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Akshiti Singhvi for
Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
01/12/2021
1. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following
reliefs:
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed
that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be
allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction
the order dated 13.10.2017 (Annexure-14) passed by
the respondent No.1 may kindly be quashed and set
aside and further the respondents may be directed to
register the instrument (Annexure-7), as sub lease
deed over the stamp duty and registration charges as
submitted by the petitioner."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner-Company was earlier functioning in the name of M/s.
Jaitex Exports Private Limited, and was allotted a plot measuring
(Downloaded on 03/12/2021 at 08:48:40 PM)
(2 of 4) [CW-1204/2018]
4480 square metres in the industrial area by the Rajasthan State
Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited
(RIICO) vide lease deed dated 15.10.1994. Learned counsel
further submits that vide another lease deed dated 31.03.2001, a
land measuring 1518.47 square metres was further allotted by
RIICO to M/s. Jaitex Exports Private Limited; again on
31.05.2002, the RIICO further allotted a land measuring 1648.93
square metres to M/s Jaitex Exports Private Limited vide allotment
letter dated 31.05.2002.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the
petitioner-Company changed its name from "M/s. Jaitex Exports
Private Limited" to "M/s. Vinod Ventures and Resorts Private
Limited", which was duly communicated to the Registrar of
Companies, and consequently, an amended fresh Certificate of
Incorporation was issued on 05.08.2011 in accordance with
Section 23(1) of the Companies Act, 1956.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the
RIICO, on presentation of the supplementary lease deed, asked
the petitioner-Company to pay a stamp duty of Rs.21,01,130/-
and a surcharge of Rs.4,20,240/- alongwith registration fee of
Rs.4,00,000/- as well as other fee to the tune of Rs.300/-, while
considering the nature of the document in question as
conveyance.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
charging of the duty and fees was unlawful, as it was a case of
mere change in the name of the Company.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the
petitioner-Company had filed an application under Section 35 of
the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of
(Downloaded on 03/12/2021 at 08:48:40 PM)
(3 of 4) [CW-1204/2018]
1998') before the respondent No.1 seeking a direction to the Sub
Registrar to register the document in question as supplementary
lease deed, on account of change in the name of the petitioner-
Company, with a clear stand that the legal character of the
Company has not changed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
Sub Registrar filed a reply before the concerned authority, while
taking a stand that the supplementary lease is in fact a lease by
way of assignment, and thus the duty in question shall be charged
as per Article 5 of the Act of 1998.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the
present case, Article 24 of the Act of 1998 was applicable, as it
was a mere change in the name of the Company.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that
an alternative remedy was available to the petitioner under
Section 65(1) of the Act of 1998.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a judgment
rendered by this Court in M/s. Maharaja Enclave Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10001/2018,
decided on 12.04.2019), wherein this Court has held that an
effective alternative remedy under Section 65(1) of the Act of
1998 was available on payment of Rs.25% of the payable amount,
as per the new amended law.
11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as
perusing the record of the case, alongwith the judgment cited at
the Bar, this Court finds that it is a fit case where the petitioner
ought to take up the alternative remedy, as already laid down by
this Court in M/s. Maharaja Enclave (supra).
(Downloaded on 03/12/2021 at 08:48:40 PM)
(4 of 4) [CW-1204/2018]
12. This Court is thus of the opinion that it would be prejudicial
at this stage to make any comment on merits of the case, as there
is an alternative remedy as provided under Section 65(1) of the
Act of 1998. The alternative and efficacious remedy is available
with only 25% of the amount to be paid as per the new
amendment in the law, which has done away with the mandatory
requirement of payment of 50% of the amount. This Court also
finds that there is no such outright violation of the principles of
natural justice or any such irresistible reason, which would take
this Court to bypass the statutory alternative remedy under
Section 65(1) of the Act of 1998.
13. Thus, in the best interest of justice, it would be appropriate
to relegate the parties to the statutory remedy available with a
clear liberty to come back to this Court again, in case either of
them wishes to seek redressal, after the alternative remedy is
exhausted.
14. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition
stands disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
155-SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
