High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Santosh Kumar Ii v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 16388 of 2007  RD-AH 5522 (28 March 2007)
Hon. Anjani Kumar, J.
Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. In view of the order that we propose to pass, it is not necessary to invite counter affidavit.
The question involved in this petition is regarding the stamp duty to be charged on security deposit under the provisions of Indian Stamp Act. This question has been considered in detail by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 35096 of 2004 (M/s. Strong Construction Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 22.3.2005 connected with 91 other writ petitions.
In view of the aforesaid decision, we direct the respondents not to compel the petitioner to pay stamp duty on security deposit in question treating it as "mortgage deed" and to charge stamp duty on such "securities" as provided under Article 57(b) of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act.
The writ petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, it is clarified that this order is applicable only in those cases where the stamp duty is being asked on the security amount and it will not apply in any other circumstances.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.