Rapid Suppliers Pvt.Ltd v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The petition is disposed of in terms of the
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr.H.G.Vijaykumar for the petitioner Ms.Geeta Shastri, AGP for Res.1 to 3 CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : 20TH NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C.:- . In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has interalia prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent i.e. the Collector of Stamps Mumbai to release the indenture dated 27/3/2000 executed between M/s ATN Arihant International Limited in respect of office room no.68 admeasuring 655 square feet in B wing of Mittal Towers, Nariman Point ,Mumai. 2 2] It is not necessary to give all the facts for the purpose of disposal of this petition in view of the statements made by learned counsel. From the affidavit in reply filed by Shri. Madhav Patil, Collector of Stamps, Mumbai ,it appears that the Superintendent of Stamps (Head Quarters) ,Mumbai forwarded certain information to his office vide letter dated 28/5/2008 from which prima facie it appears that the franking stamp impression of Rs.6,55,000/- on the indenture dated 27/3/2000 presented by the petitioner to his office was bogus and it was therefore forwarded to his office for necessary action against the bogus franking impression . The affidavit further states that after the receipt of said letter dated 28/5/2008 by exercising the powers conferred under sections 42 and 63(b) of Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 in respect of the offence committed with intention of evading payment of proper duty and carrying illegal sale of stamps a complaint was lodged at Mata Ramabai Ambedkar Police Station, Mumbai on 29/7/2009.
3] On the last occasion we had directed learned A.G.P. 3 to take instructions as to whether it is possible to give certified copy of the original document pending investigation of the case as prayed by the petitioner. Today Ms.Shastri, learned A.G.P., has tendered a copy of the letter addressed by Collector of Stamps ,Mumbai to her which states that the certified copy of the original document involving bogus franking will be issued to the petitioner, provided he deposits the deficit stamp duty of Rs.6,55,000/- alongwith penalty Rs.12,44,500/-(190% ) in the office of the Collector of Stamps, Mumbai . This penalty is stated to be for the period from the execution of the document i.e.27/3/2000 till the date of lodging of the document in the office of the Collector of Stamps, Mumbai i.e. 23/1/2008 . It is stated that the amount may be paid by separate pay-orders in favour of the Collector of Stamps, Mumbai as the document is considered as unstamped due to bogus franking.
Operative part
The said letter is taken on record and marked ‘X’.Copy of the said letter is handed over to the counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions from Mr.Nimesh Shah who is authorised signatory of the 4 petitioner company states that the petitioner is willing to pay the amount as stated in letter dated 19/11/2009 by separate pay orders in favour of the Collector of Stamps, Mumbai. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said amount will be paid within a period of two weeks from today . Ms.Shastri, learned A.G.P.states that in case the amount is deposited as per letter dated 19/11/2009, certified copy of the original document will be issued within three weeks thereafter. 4] 5] The above statements are accepted. We make it clear that we have not examined the merits of the petition. Needless to say , this order will not effect the investigation of the case. Investigation shall continue . 6] The petition is disposed of in terms of the statements recorded . 7] Authorities to act on copy of this order authenticated by the Associate . [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.]
[MRS.. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.]
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is disposed of in terms of the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 20 Nov 2009. The bench was MRIDULA BHATKAR.
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.