Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Reserves Verdict in Raju Tampering Conviction Plea
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ABHAY AHUJA
Deepak Fertilizers And Petrochemicals Corporation Limited – Appellant
Versus
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Abhay Ahuja, J.
1. This Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks direction to set-aside the Order dated 22nd June 2005 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in Appeal No. 127 of 1998 whereby the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority had dismissed the appeal preferred by the Petitioner under Section 53 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 now Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (the “Stamp Act”) thereby confirming the Order dated 1st July 1998 passed by the Collector of Stamps which confirmed the Order dated 31st March 1998 whereby the Collector of Stamps has held that the Agreement dated 13th October 1995 executed between the Respondent No.3 City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (the “CIDCO”) and the Petitioner is liable to be treated as ‘lease’ for the purpose of assessment of stamp duty under the Stamp Act.
2. The background facts are that in and around 1991, Respondent No. 3 CIDCO published a scheme for the benefit of the industries a
An agreement for a future lease contingent on construction does not constitute a lease and cannot be impounded for stamp duty until the property exists.
The distinction between lease and license must adhere to explicit terms of agreements, with possession alone insufficient to confer tenancy rights.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the nature of the document, the requirement for registration and stamp duty, and the duty of the Court to ensure compliance w....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between lease and license as per the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the treatment of lease renewal and security deposit for stamp duty....
The court affirmed that for mining leases, stamp duty calculations must account for anticipated royalty alongside dead rent per statutory provisions and established practices.
The distinction between a license and a lease is determined by the intention of the parties, as reflected in the deed, rather than merely the possession of the property.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article