A review petition cannot be based on arguments or judgments not previously cited, and must demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record to be maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

This Review Petition has been preferred by the State against judgment dated 31.7.2023 passed in CWP No. 3331 of 2021, titled as M/s Indorama India Private Limited & another Vs. State of H.P. and others.

2. Review Petition has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the petition, stating therein that Review Petitioner failed to bring into notice of the Court case laws on the subject as laid down by the Supreme Court and as such error apparent on the face of record has occurred and, therefore, judgment needs to be reviewed.

3. It has been contended that reliance placed by this Court on the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in General Radio and Appliances Co. Ltd. Vs. M.A. Khader , AIR 1986 SCC 1218 is error apparent on the record because this judgment has already been distinguished by the Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Lever and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2002) 9 SCC 438 and thus conclusion arrived at by this Court is in violation of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Lever’s case.

4. It has been further contended that conclusion arrived at by this Court that for sanction of Scheme of Arrangement by NCLT, in terms of provisions of Companies Act for transfer of leasehold right, no fresh deed or conveyance or instrument is required to be executed, is in direct conflict with law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Lever’s case.

5. Lastly, it has been claimed that judgment in Hindustan Lever’s case has been followed by the Delhi High Court in case titled as Delhi Towers Ltd. Vs. G.N.C.T. holding that stamp duty is applicable on the merger order passed by NCLT under the Companies Act.

6. Learned Advocate General has also contended that the word “instrument” would include sanction of the scheme as well as orders passed by the NCLT and, therefore, stamp duty is leviable upon such transfer as held in Hindustan Lever’s case.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is delay in filing the Review Petition. The grounds taken for reviewing the judgment are beyond the scope of review and there is no manifest error apparent on the record and the judgment being referred now, was never relied upon by Review Petitioners-State. Lastly it has been stated that in compliance of judgment impugned in Review Petition, Review Petitioners have acted upon and raised demand of amount from the respondent vide communication dated 14.2.2024, issued by Deputy Director of Industries Single Window Clearance System, Baddi, District Solan, H.P. Not only this, in furtherance to the aforesaid communication/demand, respondents have deposited an amount of ₹19,000/- vide receipt No. 71139, dated 14.6.2024 and ₹1,33,68,720/- vide receipt No. 66381 dated 16.2.2024, which has been accepted by the Department of Industries on account of maintenance charges and transfer fee.

8. Referring the provisions of The Indian Stamp Act , 1899, The Indian Stamp (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Act , 1952, Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 and The Maharashtra Stamp Act , 1993 it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondents that there is no para-materia provision either in the Indian Stamp Act , 1899 or The Indian Stamp (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1952 corresponding to the provisions of The Bombay Stamp Act and/or The Maharashtra Stamp Act, which was in reference in Hindustan Lever’s case. It has been contended that judgment in Hindustan Lever’s case has been passed with reference to definitions described in Section 2(g)(iv) inserted by the Maharashtra Act No. 17 of 1993 in Bombay Stamp Act , 1958. Whereas, there is no such corresponding provision in the Stamp Acts applicable in the present case and thus reliance placed on Hindustan Lever’s case is misconceived.

9. To substantiate claim of respondents, learned counsel for the respondents has referred judgments of Division Benches of this High Court in M/s Sozin Flora Pharma LLP Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh , 2021 AIR (HP) 44 ; Reckitt