Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HARSHIT HARISH JAIN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellants entered into an agreement (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. appellants argue for unamended regime (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. high court's focus on registration date (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. impugned judgment set aside (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
J U D G M E N T
1. Leave granted.
3. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are as follows:
3.2. Pursuant to the execution of the Agreement to Sell, the Appellants paid stamp duty of ₹27,34,500, as mandated under the Act. The said Agreement was registered on 18.09.2014, upon payment of an additional registration charge of ₹30,000.
3.4. Constrained by the uncertainty over timely possession, the Appellants chose to cancel the booking. Consequently, a Deed of Cancellation was executed on 17.03.2015. However, the said Cancellation Deed came to be registered only on 28.04.2015 before the Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Mumbai City. Subsequently, on 23.05.2016, a Deed of Rectification was also executed, clarifying the refund details and other particulars of the cancellation.
3.6. The refund application was initially allowed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune (CCRA), vide its Order d
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
