KARTIKBHAI ARVINDBHAI SHAH v. DY. COLLECTOR & 2
Case at a glance
- Bench
- D H WAGHELA
Outcome
Partly allowed
Therefore, the petition is partly allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Therefore, the petition is partly allowed with the direction that the application of and the reference, if any, made at the instance of SCA/14092/2007 JUDGMENT the petitioner shall be considered by respondent No.2 in accordance with law and decided after affording to the petitioner…
Judgment
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= KARTIKBHAI ARVINDBHAI SHAH - Petitioner(s) Versus DY. COLLECTOR & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR RAJESH K SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1,MR ASHVIN J POPAT for Petitioner(s) : 1, MS.MD MEHTA AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 06/08/2007 ORAL JUDGMENT
RULE. Learned A.G.P. Ms.M.D. Mehta waives service for the respondents.
Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has called into question the Communication dated 08.04.2006 of the Deputy SCA/14092/2007 JUDGMENT Collector, Stamps Duty Valuation Organization, Rajkot whereby, the petitioner was informed that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority had not accepted the application of the petitioner on the ground of delay. It was submitted by learned counsel Mr.Shah and conceded on behalf of the respondents that the order dated 30.04.2001, made under the provisions of Section 32-A of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (for short “the Act”) was sought to be referred under the provisions of Section 32-B of the Act after depositing on or after 26.07.2001, 25% of the deficit stamp duty and the so-called memo of appeal was filed on
25.09.2001, within the period of limitation after knowledge of the order; and yet the application was rejected by the impugned order without application of mind and without affording to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.
Operative part
Therefore, the petition is partly allowed with the direction that the application of and the reference, if any, made at the instance of SCA/14092/2007 JUDGMENT the petitioner shall be considered by respondent No.2 in accordance with law and decided after affording to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. In view of long lapse of time, the proceedings before respondent No.2 shall be conducted and concluded as expeditiously as practicable. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted. Hitesh
(D.H.WAGHELA, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Therefore, the petition is partly allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
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.