THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT ON LEVY OF PENALTY BY COLLECTOR OF STAMPS UNDER SECTION 40 OF THE INDIAN STAMP ACT, 1899.

 

 

 

 

NAME

MOBILE NO.

E-MAIL I’D

RANJEET KUMAR

8383098478, 9667769795

rk@courtkutchehry.com

JAI THAKUR

8130703334, 9355723300

jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com

RAJEEV RANJAN

9334553249

rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com

ASHOK MISHRA

9718327746

sales@courtkutchehry.com

RAVI KUMAR


ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com


TRUSTEES OF H.C. DHANDA TRUST vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS, (2020) 09 SC CK 0029

A Fill Bench of the Supreme Court partly allowed the Appeal and modified the penalty imposed by Collector of Stamps from ten times  into five times penalty .The Full Bench in its judgement  expressed the view that the  purpose of penalty generally is a deterrence and not retribution. When a discretion is given to a public authority, such public authority should exercise such discretion reasonably and not in oppressive manner. The responsibility to exercise the discretion in reasonable manner lies more in cases where discretion vested by the statute is unfettered. Imposition of the extreme penalty i.e. ten times of the duty or deficient portion thereof cannot be based on the mere factum of evasion of duty. The reason such as fraud or deceit in order to deprive the Revenue or undue enrichment are relevant factors to arrive at a decision as to what should be the extent of penalty under Section 40(1)(b) of the Indian Stamp Act 1899.The Supreme Court also opined that it was not the case of the Collector of Stamps that the conduct of the Appellant was dishonest  or contumacious.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT ON DIRECTING A FRESH/ DE NOVO INVESTIGATION EVEN AFTER INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN CONCLUDED AND POLICE REPORT SUBMITTED UNDER SECTION 173(2) OF THE CR. P.C. THOUGH UNDER SECTION 173 (8) OF CR.P.C. ONLY A FURTHER INVESTIGATION CAN BE ORDERED.

Image
        NAME MOBILE NO. E-MAIL I’D RANJEET   KUMAR 8383098478 ,  9667769795 rk@courtkutchehry.com JAI THAKUR 8130703334 ,  9355723300 jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com RAJEEV   RANJAN 9334553249 rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com ASHOK   MISHRA 9718327746 sales@courtkutchehry.com RAVI   KUMAR ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com Neetu Kumar Nagaich Vs. State Of Rajasthan And Others, (2020) 09 SC CK 0026 A Full Bench of the Supreme Court while setting aside the Closure Report filed by the Police directed a de novo investigation by a fresh team of investigators to be headed by a senior police officer of the State consisting of efficient personnel well conversant with use of modern investigation technology also. No officer who was part of the investigating team leading to the closure report shall be part of the team conducting de novo investigation. The Supreme Court was of the view that normally when an investigation has been concluded and...
Read more

SUPREME COURT FULL BENCH JUDGMENT ON A REFERENCE ARISING OUT OF CONFLICT BETWEEN TWO DIVISION BENCH DECISIONS IN JOGINDER TULI VS. S.L. BHATIA, (1996) 10 SC CK 0017 AND OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. VS. MODERN CONSTRUCTION & CO., (2013) 10 SC CK 0043 WITH REGARD TO QUESTION OF LAW IF A PLAINT IS RETURNED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 10 AND 10A OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908, FOR PRESENTATION IN THE COURT IN WHICH IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED, WHETHER THE SUIT SHALL PROCEED DE NOVO OR WILL IT CONTINUE FROM THE STAGE WHERE IT WAS PENDING BEFORE THE COURT AT THE TIME OF RETURNING OF THE PLAINT.

Image
        NAME MOBILE NO. E-MAIL I’D RANJEET   KUMAR 8383098478 ,  9667769795 rk@courtkutchehry.com JAI THAKUR 8130703334 ,  9355723300 jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com RAJEEV   RANJAN 9334553249 rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com ASHOK   MISHRA 9718327746 sales@courtkutchehry.com RAVI   KUMAR ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com M/S. Exl Careers And Another Vs. Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited, (2020) 08 SC CK 0001 A Full Bench of the Supreme Court on a reference by a two Judge Bench opining a perceived conflict between two Division Bench decisions in Joginder Tuli vs. S.L. Bhatia,  (1996) 10 SC CK 0017  and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation   Ltd. vs. Modern Construction & Co.,  (2013) 10 SC CK 0043  with regard to question of law if a plaint is   returned under Order VII Rule 10 and 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, for presentation in the court in which it should have been instituted, ...
Read more

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT ON SECTION 142(2)(a) OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT

Image
        NAME MOBILE NO. E-MAIL I’D RANJEET   KUMAR 8383098478 ,  9667769795 rk@courtkutchehry.com JAI THAKUR 8130703334 ,  9355723300 jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com RAJEEV   RANJAN 9334553249 rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com ASHOK   MISHRA 9718327746 sales@courtkutchehry.com RAVI   KUMAR ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com M/S Himalaya Self Farming Group & Anr Vs. M/S Goyal Feed Suppliers, (2020) 09 SC CK 0037 A Single Bench of the Supreme Court held that under Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the court within whose jurisdiction the branch of the bank where the payee maintains the account is situated, will have jurisdiction to try the offence, if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account.
Read more