Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF HARYANA & ANR versus KARAM NARIAN

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


STATE OF HARYANA & Anr v. KARAM NARIAN - RSA-2492-2004 [2005] RD-P&H 35 (4 July 2005)

C.M.No. 5985-C of 2004

in 1

R. S. A No. 2492 of 2004

State of Haryana and another Versus Karam Narian Present: Mr.S.K.Hooda, Sr.DAG Haryana

...

There is a delay of 128 days in filing of this appeal. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent despite service.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

R.S.A No. 2492 of 2004

The plaintiff-respondent affixed stamp duty of Rs.30,000/- for registration of mortgage deed. Subsequently, it transpired that no stamp duty was leviable on registration of mortgage deed in the case of a Co-operative Society registered under the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act. Accordingly, they demanded refund of the court fee amount deposited by them. As the same was not given by the defendants-appellants, therefore, they filed suit for declaration. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehabad, vide judgment dated 9.6.2003 decreed the suit and directed the State of Haryana to refund the entire amount of Rs.30,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum. The appeal filed by the State was dismissed but interest was reduced from 8 per cent per annum to 6 per cent per annum, by the Additional District Judge, vide C.M.No. 5985-C of 2004

in 2

R. S. A No. 2492 of 2004

judgment dated 14.11.2003.

Shri S.K.Hooda, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana contends that it was the plaintiffs who themselves affixed court fee of Rs.30,000/- and hence they are not entitled to any refund. It is further submitted that in any case the plaintiff is not entitled to any interest on the refund.

While affixing the court fee of Rs.30,000/- for registration of the mortgage deed by a Co-operative Society, no court fee was leviable, yet the officials of the State of Haryana demanded the court fee. The plaintiff had no other option but to affix the court fee. Therefore, the State of Haryana has utilized the amount of Rs.30,000/- for no valid reasons. Accordingly, the interest awarded is just and reasonable.

In view of the above, I find no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed.

( Ashutosh Mohunta )

Judge

July 28, 2005

RS


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.