Login For Lawyers Home Consult a lawyer Flat fee services About Blog Judgements Careers Contact Us Snippet Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy Legal Topics
Himalaya House Co. Ltd. Bombay V/s Chief Controlling Revenue
Recent Post

Get Legato App on your mobile.

Himalaya House Co. Ltd. Bombay V/s Chief Controlling Revenue
Himalaya House Co. Ltd. Bombay V/s Chief Controlling Revenue

Facts of the Case

This appeal has been filed before the Honorable Supreme Court by the appellant after the order passed by the Honorable High Court of Bombay dismissing the appeal of the then appellant pursuant to section 54 of the Indian Stamp act. While this application was made to this court after filing the appeal previously to the High Court, Bombay, where such submission was made that the high court has no authority or the application, was not maintainable under Article 133 of the Constitution of India. Filing this appeal as CA 58 of 1972 to quashed such contention about maintainability of that application, whereby entertain the appeal it should be decided the CA no. 660 of 1967 stands disposed accordingly.

On 18/11/1950 the plot admeasuring 1,368 square yards was being leased to Lily Investment Corporation for the period of 999 years. The admeasuring plot was located at Palton Road, Bombay, where the appellant had its business. The Corporation (Lily Investment Corporation) subleased the land to Mr Uttamchand Tulsidas for a term of 999 years but in such term of sublease one day was excluded as to the original, that should be executed from 26th June 1942 this leased would be taking effect from the date 11th December 1950. On the effective date of the leased Mr Uttamchand Tulsidas constructed Himalaya House with shops and other establishments under it.

As the agreements, he entered into the right of occupation assigned to him under various clauses, such occupational right in assigned in pursuant to flats, shops and offices to any or several persons. One such agreement pursuing to right of the assignment was made between Motiram Shewaram Vallicha and the appellant for purchase on the block in the building for the consideration of Rs. 10,000/- for the block at the ground floor. On 28th June 1955, the appellant has incorporated company under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and Mr Uttamchand transferred all the right of assignment to the incorporated company and mentioned the company was formed for a better administration of the estate. Latter such transfer was made on a stamp paper consisting the stamp duty of 12 annas and when such stamp paper was submitted for registration to the Sub- Registrar and further it was submitted to the Assistant Superintendent, he further calculated the stamp duty under section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act and stated that the duty value of the property is 16,00,000/- and stamp duty to paid by the appellant company will be Rs. 95,997/- pursuing to such section the Assistant Superintendent also impounded the penalty of Rs. 20,000/-.

Issues of the Case

  1. Should the Assignment Deed in the question be stamped as per the Article in Schedule 1 in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899?
  2. What is the Consideration regarding Article 23 in the matter present hereinabove with regards to Assignment Deed?


The Honorable Supreme Court after hearing the learned counsels representing both the parties in the matter above and considering the facts and the precedents submitted established by the Honorable Judges to support the prayers and pleadings of the parties in the matter above states its observation herein that: The court herein states that there exist some questions that will have to be answered by the learned counsel in the matter above, and the judges in their unanimous decisions stated that any article that applies to the matter would be article 23 from the schedule of the Indian Stamp Act which will be termed for later use as Stamp Ace.

The Chief Justice stated that for considering the matter and calculating the consideration for the Assignment Deed is the total amount payable to the Assignor Tulsidas in the agreement made under the provision of the law, and such agreement per se between the parties to such agreement, but however, one judge in the Supreme Court had a dissenting opinion and further clarifying his opinion stated that there was a clear interpretation to the consideration states in the agreement entered into parties to such agreement. As the agreement goes, it says that the only consideration involved is no consideration. The court further establishing the interpretation states that the sitting judges unanimously agreed that the Article 23 applicable in the matter hereinabove would be referred to as “Stamp Ace” but while dealing with the second question it was stated that the consideration as to the assignment deed is concerned was nil and the officer can travel outside of the document as set forth.

This court while deciding the integrity of the matter cannot uphold the decision of the Assistant Superintendent that if the value of rights assigned is not mentioned in the Assignment Deeds it should be calculated as per the independent valuation as to personal acumen and in according to the law by oneself also the court cannot take consideration of the conclusion by the Superintendent that the appellant company was a nominee of the assignor in the flats. The Court in the matter above did not find any contention to be accepted that comes under section 27 of the Act. The Court finds true and fair for any party to disclose the true chargeability duty whilst the circumstances relating to the consideration, such parties are expected to reveal the true value of the consideration regarding any estate for which such stamp duty is assigned, but if such section or compliance does not comply then the penalizing section under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, i.e. section 64 but even then no such authority under the Act has any right with regard to independent valuation of the consideration.

The Honorable Supreme Court allows the contention the consideration in the matter, that the Assignment Deed itself is no consideration and allowing the appeal the Court decides that the first Respondent shall pay the cost of Appellant in CA 58 of 1972.

All Comments