SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(SC) 89

S.RAJENDRA BABU, S.P.BHARUCHA
Veena Hasmukh Jain – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent


Judgment

Rajendra Babu, J.-The question raised for consideration in these appeals is identical as to the duty payable under the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 on an agreement for sale of flats covered by the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MOF Act’) and the Maharashtra Ownership Act, 1970.

2. A Writ Petition before the High Court of Bombay was filed by the appellants on the allegation that on October 8, 1987 they entered into an agreement for purchase of a flat with one M/s. Century Enterprises. The agreement for sale was executed in terms of Section 4 of the MOF Act. It was lodged for registration on November 3, 1987 as required under Section 4 of the MOF Act read with Section 17(1) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. The consideration disclosed in the agreement was shown at Rs. 3,75,000/- for the purpose of purchase of the flat and a registration fee of Rs. 3,750/- was paid in addition to copying fee and postal charges. The Sub-Registrar of Bombay, by a letter sent to the appellants in February, 1988, informed them that the agreement had been impounded and being sent to the















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top