Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. MEERA SAXENA versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Meera Saxena v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 1188 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 609 (10 January 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner. aggrieved by an order passed by the Additional Commissioner, (Judicial), Bareilly Division, Bareilly  dated 25th September 2006 whereby an appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 56 of Stamps Act has been dismissed, approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid appeal was filed by the petitioner against the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps) Shahjahanpur whereby he has held that the stamp duty paid by the petitioner on the instrument is insufficient and he, therefore, directed the petitioner to deposit the deficient amount of stamps amounting to Rs.29,900/-, registration charges Rs.4,500/- and penalty of Rs.600/-, total Rs.35,000/- on the ground that according to valuation fixed by the Collector by its notification dated 3.3.2003 the agricultural land of the locality in question has been fixed to be charged for stamps at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per dismal. Nothing has been brought by the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what is the error in the orders impugned in the present writ petition. I have gone through the orders impugned in the writ petition and I do not find any of the orders suffer from any error much less an error apparent on the face of record which may warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Dt: 10.1.2007.

mhu - 1188/07


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.