State Of Maharashtra vs National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 304

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, PRASANNA B. VARALE
State Of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Aniruddha Joshi, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mrs. Preet S. Phanse, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anuj P. Agarwala,Adv. M/S. PBA Legal, AOR

JUDGMENT :

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.

1. The State of Maharashtra is in appeal before us challenging the order of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court dated 18.08.2009, which has allowed the writ petition of the respondent, while setting aside the order of the Deputy Superintendent of Stamps, Maharashtra (appellant no.2).

We have heard learned counsel Mr. Aniruddha Joshi for the appellants and learned senior counsel Ms. Madhavi Divan for the respondents.

National Organic Chemical India Ltd. (respondent) was incorporated with an initial share capital of Rs.36 crores. In 1992 it increased its share capital to Rs. 600 crores and accordingly paid a stamp duty of Rs.1,12,80,000/- as per Article 10 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter “Stamp Act”). At that time, the provision read as under:

1	2
Description of Instrument	Proper Stamp Duty
10. ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF A COMPANY – Where the Company has no share capital or nominal share capital or increased share capital.	One thousand rupees for every rupees 5,00,000 or part thereof.

The State of Maharashtra (appellant no.1) on 02.08.1994 amended Article 10 and introduced a maximum cap of Rs.25 la

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(SC) 304

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, PRASANNA B. VARALEState Of Maharashtra – AppellantVersusNational Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. – Respondent

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, PRASANNA B. VARALE
State Of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. – Respondent