Lokeshwar Prasad, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff has filed the present suit for the recovery of Rs 1,61,098. 00 against the defendants averring that the plaintiff is a Company, duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and Shri Baldev Kishan, a Director of the plaintiff Company is competent to sign and verify the pleadings and to institute the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff Company. It is alleged that the plaintiff Company purchased a commercial plot No. 4, at the District Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi in an open auction from the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the DDA) for a consideration of Rs 1,22,30,512. 00 and the defendant DDA executed a perpetual lease deed dated the 10th August, 1984 in favour of the plaintiff Company by virtue of which the lease hold rights in respect of the above said plot were transferred in favour of the plaintiff Company. 1. 2it is further alleged that the following amount has been collected and charged from the plaintiff towards Stamp Duty under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and towards duty on the transfer of property under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) for the execution and registration of the Lease Deed of the above said plot in favour of the plaintiff. (a) Stamp Duty: 4,35,735. 00 (b) Duty on transfer of property (under the provisions of Section 147 of the DMC Act): 2,16,582. 25 Total (Rs) 6,52,317. 25 1. 3the above said amount, amounting to Rs 6,52,317. 25 was deposited by the plaintiff Company on 9. 7. 84. As per the averments made in the plaint, the amount of Stamp Duty, payable under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is collected by Delhi Administration (defendant No. 2) and the amount of duty on transfer of property is collected by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (defendant No. 3 ). It is further alleged that the above said transfer of lease hold rights in perpetuity by virtue of the Perpetual Lease Deed dated the 10th August, 1984 in respect of the plot in question, in favour of the plaintiff, for the purpose of duty on transfer of property is covered under Section 147 (2) (b) (v) of the Act, which reads as under:- "147. (2) The said duty shall be levied - (a ). . . . . . . . . . (b) at such rate as may be determined by the Corporation not exceeding 5 per cent on the amount specified below against such instruments: (i ). . . . . . . . . . (ii ). . . . . . . . . . (iii ). . . . . . . . . (iv ). . . . . . . . . (v) Lease in perpetuity|the amount equal of immovable to one-sixth of property. the whole amount or value of the rent which would be paid or delivered in respect of the first fifty years of the Lease as set forth in the instrument. " 1. 4it is averred that in terms of the above said. pa provisions of the Act, the amount payable was Rs 1,01,920. 93 and as against the above said amount the defendants have collected a sum of Rs 2,16,582. 25 towards the duty on transfer of property under the above said provisions of the Act which is illegal, without jurisdiction and against the provisions of the Act. It is alleged that the plaintiff Company, therefore, has a right to claim the refund of Rs 1,14,661. 32, charged in excess by the defendants. It is further alleged that inspite of the service of legal notice dated the 8th July, 1986 the defendants have not refunded the above excess amount to the plaintiff Company and as such are jointly and severely liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum according to the bank rate which in turn had to be paid by the plaintiff while taking loans from the Bank. 1. 5 It is also stated that statutory notices under Section 80 CPC, read with Section 478 of the Act and Section 53 (b) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 were duly served upon the defendants per registered post and as no reply has been received and no relief has been granted to the plaintiff, the plaintiff Company has filed the present suit. It has been prayed by the plaintiff that a decree for Rs 1,61,098.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document