Brothers vs State Of Uttarakhand And
2021 Latest Caselaw 18 UK

CLCON No. 2 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for the applicant.

A writ petition being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 421 of 2012 'M/S Khurana Brothers vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another' was decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court by the judgment of 04.09.2019, which contained the following directions:

"8. It is, however, made clear that if the State Government has made an amendment in Article 23 to Schedule I-B as regarding "movable property", prior to the auction, then the petitioner is liable to pay the charges in accordance with law, but any charges which accrued after 2011-2012 such as late fee, etc. shall not be taken from the petitioner. Let the goods be also delivered to the petitioner, afte the fee is paid."

Alleging its non-compliance, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a Contempt Petition No. 304 of 2020. During its pendency, the respondent had placed on record a decision taken by him on 27.10.2010, whereby, in pursuance to the decision thus taken, the responent had passed a direction of levying the stamp duty payable at the rate of 12.50 percent. The relevant part of the direction given by the order dated 25.09.2020 is quoted hereunder:

"vr% egkfujh{kd] fucU/ku] mRrjk[k.M }kjk fn;s x;s vfHker ,oa foÙk foHkkx dh mDr ij lgefr ds vk/kkj ij ;kfpdkdrkZ ls o'kZ 2001 esa ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk Ø; fd;s x;s yhlk ij ns; LVkEi "kqYd 12-50 izfr"kr fu/kkZfjr djrs gq, izdj.k dk fuLrkj.k fd;k tkrk gSA"

The petitioner contends that the intitial order passed by the court was based on the direction that subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of stamp duty, which is being levied by the respondents, they were also supposed to simultaneously deliver the goods to the petitioner.

In the present contempt petition the petitioner has submitted that after passing of the order in the contempt petition; as well as the order passed by the respondent on 25.09.2020, he has represented his case before the respondent without giving a challenge to an order dated 25.09.2020, whereby, he had submitted that he is willing to deposit the stamp duty at the rate of 12.50 percent under protest, but simultaneously he wanted and expected the compliance of the last part of the judgment with regards to, "the delivery of the goods". The same has not been done. Hence, the contempt petition.

Issue notice to the respodnent showing cause; as to once the petitioner has expressed his willingness to deposit the stamp duty at the rate of 12.50 percent, as directed by the decision dated 25.09.2020, why the respondent is not complying with the concluding part of the judgment rendered by this court of delivering the goods.

The petitioner would take steps within a period of ten days from today.

The respondent may file his response within a period of three weeks from today.

List thereafter.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 06.01.2021 Pooja