Judgment · High Court · 1997
Case at a glance
Held
The Court held that (A) petitioners may file a reply to the notice within eight weeks from the date of the judgment; if such a reply is filed within that period, the competent authority may not raise any objection on the ground of delay, and interim relief will be granted by suspending the effect of the recovery until the matter is finally decided. (B) In cases challenging an order under Section 32-A, petitioners may avail the remedy available under the Act.
Outcome
Disposed of
group of Special Civil Applications are disposed of in
Provisions considered
Summary
AI-generated summaryWritten by AI from the judgment text below. It is not part of the judgment and is not legal advice — read the original before relying on it.
Facts
The Court dealt with a large group of Special Civil Applications (referred to as "Stamp" cases) filed under the Stamp Act in Gujarat. The applications concerned challenges to notices issued by authorities under the Act, and to orders made under Section 32-A of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958.
Issues
- Whether petitioners who challenge a notice issued under the Stamp Act without first filing a reply can still file a reply within a specified period.
- Whether petitioners who challenge an order under Section 32-A of the Bombay Stamp Act may avail the remedy provided by the Act.
Holding
The Court held that (A) petitioners may file a reply to the notice within eight weeks from the date of the judgment; if such a reply is filed within that period, the competent authority may not raise any objection on the ground of delay, and interim relief will be granted by suspending the effect of the recovery until the matter is finally decided. (B) In cases challenging an order under Section 32-A, petitioners may avail the remedy available under the Act.
Reasoning
The decision was guided by a reference made to a Larger Bench decision (Shaileshkumar vs. Sub-Registrar, Vadodara, 1996 (3) GLR 783). The Court applied the principles laid down in that decision to the present group of applications, thereby setting a procedural framework for handling such challenges.
Practical significance
The judgment provides clear procedural guidance for litigants challenging Stamp Act notices and orders under Section 32-A, emphasizing the importance of timely filing of replies and the availability of interim relief. It also illustrates the Court’s reliance on a Larger Bench decision to resolve a substantial question of law.
Judgment
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE N.N.MATHUR ============================================================
Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements?
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?
Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? -------------------------------------------------------------- KANTILAL V RELIA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: M/S HJ NANAVATI, PR NANAVATI, MUKESH R SHAH, SB VAKIL, RR MARSHAL, RS SANJANWALA, SH SANJANWALA, MP PRAJAPATI, SN SOPALKAR, PRASHANT DESAI, SURAJ K SHAH, JJ YAGNIK, BK PARIKH, PB MAJMUDAR, MS HIMALI DAVE, CH VORA, RC JANI, KS ZAVERI, RD DHOLAKIA, RC KAKKAD, AN PATEL, PK SHUKLA, YS MANKAD, SUNIL C PATEL, HARIN RAVAL, AJ DESAI, CJ VIN, AN PATEL, SURESH M SHAH, PN BAVISHI, DA BHRHMBHATT, BHARAT T RAO, DD VYAS, JR NANAVATI, NM KAPADIA, JB PARDIWALA, RR TRIVEDI, UM PANCHAL, YS LAKHANI, RAJENDRA PATEL, JAYANT PATEL, M/S S. & S. ASSOCIATES, RV DESHMUKH, PJ PATEL, HD VASARDH, SV BACHANI, JT TRIVEDI, MRS KETTY MEHTA, AJ PATEL, RC JANI, BS PATEL, AJAY MEHTA, KM PATEL, BV PARIKH, PK JANI, MS SHEELA AHUJA, MS VASUBEN SHAH, SM MARGAOKAR, MI HANE, NK MAJMUDAR, BS PATEL, CL SONI, GK UPADHYAY, MA KHARADI, BC DAVE, MM DOSHIT, KH BAXI, PM BHATT, BHARAT R PANDYA, NP NANAVATI, AR THAKKAR, RAVI R TRIPATHI, MM TIRMIZI, BK OZA, SHAILESH PARIKH, HARESH TRIVEDI, DJ BHATT, MI HARA, KK TRIVEDI, MID PATEL, BA SURTI, BM JANI, HT SONPURA, BY MANKAD, MB BUCH, MS MITA R TALREJA, BHARAT DAFTARI, MC BHATT, KETAN K TRIVEDI, MS DAXA I VYAS, DM BHATT, AMAR N BHATT, PK JANI, SK PATEL, BM MANGUKIA, ANIL DAVE, JAYESH PATEL, GM AMIN, NILESH PANDYA, RJ OZA, MY NAGARKAR, PR ABHICHANDANI - for the petitioners in different Special Civil Applications. Versus (cid:9)Mr S.N.Shelat, Addl. Adv. General with Mr M.R.Raval, AGP instructed by (cid:9)Mr H.M.Bhagat for all the respondents in all the matters (cid:9)of Stamp Act for State of Gujarat -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE N.N.MATHUR Date of decision: 20/02/97 ORAL COMMON JUDGEMENT
1.(cid:9)In this group of Special Civil Applications known as "Stamp", the matters were argued at length. During the course of arguments, it was considered expedient to make a reference to the Larger Bench on one of the important question and as such, this Court, by order dated March 23, 1995, made a reference to the Larger Bench, which has now been answered as reported in case of Shaileshkumar vs. Sub-Registrar, Vadodara reported in 1996 (3) GLR 783.
Operative part
2.(cid:9)In view of the decision of the Larger Bench, this group of Special Civil Applications are disposed of in the following manner :
3.(cid:9)Broadly, there are two sets of cases :- (cid:9)(A) In some cases, the notice issued by the authorities under the Stamps Act has been challenged without filing the reply before the said authority. In such cases, it will be open for the petitioners to file a reply before such authority within a period of eight weeks from today. If such a reply is submitted within a period of eight weeks, the competent authority shall not raise any objection about the delay. (cid:9) By way of interim relief, the recovery shall not be given effect to till the matter is finally decided in accordance with the law. (cid:9)(B) In the second set of cases, the challenge is to order under 32-A of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. In such cases, the petitioners may avail the remedy available under the Act within a period of eight weeks from today. It will be open for the petitioners to raise all the contentions available, which shall be decided by the authority in accordance with the law. If the remedy is availed within a period of eight weeks, the authority shall not raise any objection with respect to delay. There shall be stay on recovery under impugned order till the question with respect to the hardships under proviso to Section 32(1) is decided.
4.(cid:9)In view of the aforesaid, this entire group of Special Civil Applications stand disposed of. Rule discharged. Cost easy. FEBRUARY 20, 1997(cid:9) (cid:9)[ N.N.MATHUR, J. ] parmar*
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court held that (A) petitioners may file a reply to the notice within eight weeks from the date of the judgment; if such a reply is filed within that period, the competent authority may not raise any objection on the ground of delay, and interim relief will be granted by suspending the effect of the recovery until the matter is finally decided. (B) In cases challenging an order under Section 32-A, petitioners may avail the remedy available under the Act.
What was the main issue before the Court?
Whether petitioners who challenge a notice issued under the Stamp Act without first filing a reply can still file a reply within a specified period.
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 20 Feb 1997. The bench was N N MATHUR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.