High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Manoj Kumar Pandey v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 66550 of 2006  RD-AH 20705 (7 December 2006)
HON'BLE YATINDRA SINGH, J
HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.
1. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel for the respondents.
2. According to the counsel for the petitioner this writ petition is against the notice demanding stamp duty on the security deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the terms of the work contract.
3. The aforesaid point is covered by Division bench decisions of this Court in WP 36087 of 1994 (Tajveer Singh and others vs. State of UP and others) reported in 1997 (2) AWC 1029 and in WP 35097 of 2004 (M/s Strong Construction vs. State of UP and other) decided on 22nd March 2005.The State of UP has filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against this order. As no interim order was granted, the State of UP issued GO no. l0fo0d0fu0&5& 1712@X;kjg&2006&500 (Mcyw&29)@2005 dated 2nd May 2006 followed by GO of the Board of Revenue dated 12th June 2006. In these GOs it has been mentioned that the agreement be executed under Article 57 schedule 1B of the Stamps Act on the stamp paper of Rs. 100/- and a bond/affidavit be obtained from the contractor that in case special leave petition is decided in favour of the State of UP, then the entire amount shall be paid.
4. In view of the aforesaid GOs the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that authorities below may get agreement executed on the stamp mentioned therein along with the required bond/affidavit.
5. It is clarified that this order will be effective only if the notice demanding the stamp duty on the security for performance of the works contract is issued.
6. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.