K.RAMASWAMY, B.L.HANSARIA
Santosh Jayaswal – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment dated 26.8.1994 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in State of M.P. v. Santosh Jaiswal and State of M.P. v. Surendra Shukla. The question canvassed before the Division Bench was whether the right to catch fish in the tank granted in favour of the appellants was in the nature of a lease or licence, an instrument compulsorily registrable under the Indian Registration Act and liable to stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act. The Division Bench held that they were leases in respect of Santosh Jaiswal case LPAs Nos. 21 and 21 of 1994 for a period of nine months and in Surendra Shukla case LPA No. 21 of 1994 for more than one year. In the counter-affidavit filed in this Court, it was stated that the lease was for more than two years.
3. Shri Pramod Swarup, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that it is only a licence and that, therefore, it is neither an instrument compulsorily registrable under section 17 of the Registration Act nor liable to stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act. We do not agree with the learned counsel. It is true that the learned Single Judge while dispos
1. Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Coop. Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh = [(1977) 4 SCC 145]
2. Ananda Behera v. State of Orissa = [(1955) 2 SCR 919 : AIR 1956 SC 17]
3. State of W.B. v. Shebaits of Iswar Sri Saradia Thakurani = [(1972) 4 SCC 158]
4. Board of Revenue v. A.M. Ansari = [(1976) 3 SCC 512: 1976 SCC (Tax) 350]
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.