SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
Nasiruddin & Anr. Etc. – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL No.3695 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.3714 OF 2009 CIVIL APPEAL No.3709 OF 2009 CIVIL APPEAL No.3705 OF 2009 CIVIL APPEAL No.3699 OF 2009 CIVIL APPEAL No.3711 OF 2009 CIVIL APPEAL No.3702 OF 2009
Decided On : 06-12-2017
(1995) 2 UPLBEC 1789; AIR 1987 Allahabad 348 – Cited with approval
(2009) 10 SCC 455 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
In March 2004, the Corporation issued an advertisement inviting bids from public at large for letting out the right of collection of (1) realization of Tehbazari Fee from squatters, vendors, kiosks and (2) for collecting parking fees.
The appellants participated in the public auction held by the Corporation. Their bids were finally accepted.
The execution of contract led to the disputes among the appellants, Corporation and the Collector of Stamps, namely, what is the true nature of the contract and how much stamp duty is payable by the appellants on the contract under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
The Collector of Stamps requested the appellants to pay stamp duty @ Rs.70/- per thousand on the contract amount treating the contract as Lease.
The appellants filed writ petitions which were dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The contract is an instrument of lease executed between parties to collect tolls, “Tehbazari”, and parking fees. Stamp duty is payable as per rates prescribed in Article 35 of Schedule I.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) These appeals are filed against the judgment and order dated 22.05.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 9661/2005, 21327/2006, 13249/2003, 12958/2004, 26755/2004, 31238/2005, 44533/2005, 31058/2003, 22817/2006, 12957/2004 and 44532/2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein.
2) In order to appreciate the short issue arising in this bunch of appeals, it is necessary to set out few relevant facts hereinbelow.
3) Respondent No.3 is a “Nagar Nigam Meerut” also called “Municipal Corporation Meerut” in the State of U.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”). The Corporation is constituted and governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 (for short “the Act”). Its area of operation is in the city of Meerut.
4) In exercise of powers conferred by Section 541 (41) of the Act, the Corporation has framed Bye-laws for implementing the provisions of the Act and for regulating various activities meant essentially for the benefit of the residents/public of Meerut city. Clause 41 of the Bye-laws empowers the Corporation to fix any fees for grant of any license, sanction or permission to person(s) by and under the Act.
5) In March 2004, the Corporation issued an advertisement inviting bids from public at large for letting out the right of collection of (1) realization of Tehbazari Fee from squatters, vendors, kiosks and (2) for collecting parking fees.
6) So far as the connecting appeals are concerned, they pertain to other cities of U.P. but relate to the same aforementioned activities. The appellants participated in the public auction held by the Corporation. Their bids were finally accepted.
7) The Corporation accordingly informed to the appellants individually about acceptance of their bids and entered into a formal contract with each appellant to enable them to carry out the work of collection of what is called as “Tehbazari” and “Parking Fees” in terms of the contract. One such contract is (Annexure P-10). The period of contract was up to 31.03.2005.
8) The execution of contract led to the disputes among the appellants, Corporation and the Collector of Stamps, namely, what is the true nature of the contract and how much stamp duty is payable by the appellants on the contract under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short “the Stamp Act”).
9) The Corporation, vide their letter (Annexure P-8), requested the appellants to deposit the requisite stamp duty payable under the Stamp Act whereas the Collector of Stamps requested the appellants to pay stamp duty @ Rs.70/- per thousand on the contract amount treating the contract as Lease.
10) The appellants felt aggrieved of the demand raised by the Collector of Stamps and filed writ petitions in the Allahabad High Court. The Allahabad High Court placing reliance on its previous decisions in Munindra Nath Upadhaya vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (W.P. No.4978 of 1994) (1995) 2 UPLBEC 1789 and Mohammad Ali vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. (AIR 1987 Allahabad 348) upheld the demands raised by the Collector of Stamps and finding no fault therein dismissed the writ petitions which has given rise to filing of these appeals by special leave by the unsuccessful writ petitioners in this Court.
11) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in these appeals. In our opinion, the conclusion arrived at by the High Court in the case of Mohammad Ali vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. (supra) is just and proper calling for no interference for the reasons given by us hereinbelow.
12) Sections 2(12), 2(14), 2(16) and Article 35 of Schedule I to the Stamp Act are relevant for deciding the question arising in the case. They read as under:
“2(12) “Executed” and “execution”, used with reference to instrum
Munindra Nath Upadhaya vs. State of U.P.
Mohammad Ali vs. Board of Revenue, U.P.
New Bus-Stand Shop Owners Association v. Corporaton of Kozhikode
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.