Section 106 IEA Cannot Fill the Gaps in a Shaky Prosecution Case: Rajasthan High Court Rebukes Investigative Lapses in Murder Trial Accident Claim | Ration Card Cannot Decide a Man’s Age: Punjab & Haryana High Court Forgery in Wife’s Name and Defiance of Court Orders Amount to Contempt: Kerala High Court Limitation | Selectively Active Litigant Cannot Seek Liberal Condonation: Delhi High Court Refuses to Revive 1589 Days’ Delay Mere Unnatural Death Within Seven Months Is Not Dowry Death: Delhi High Court Refuses to Reverse Acquittal in Ruby Hanging Case A Partition Suit Is a Suit for Land: Bombay High Court Rejects Plaint for Want of Clause XII Leave Senior Citizens Act Cannot Be A Shortcut To Reclaim Property Registered In Wife's Name: Bombay High Court State Bound By Its Concession; More Meritorious Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment: Supreme Court Balances Equity In Rajasthan Grade III Teacher Recruitment Penalty For Delayed Compensation Is The Employer's Personal Fault — Insurance Company Cannot Be Made To Pay For The Employer's Own Default: Supreme Court Bail Cannot Be a Mechanical Exercise in Murder and Atrocities Cases: Supreme Court Cancels Bail Granted on ‘Extraneous Considerations’ Even A Lathi Becomes A Murder Weapon When Repeatedly Aimed At The Head With Bone-Deep Force: Supreme Court Applies The Virsa Singh Test To Demolish The Defence That Lathis Are Not Deadly Weapons Section 149 IPC While Demanding Proof Of Individual Fatal Blow Runs Contrary To The Very Principle Of Vicarious Liability: Supreme Court Statement Under Section 108 Is Substantive Evidence If Voluntary:  Supreme Court Upholds Conviction In Smuggling Case U.P. Anti-Conversion Act Does Not Apply To Interfaith Live-In Relationships Unless Actual Conversion Is Intended: Allahabad High Court Section 480(6) BNSS | If Trial Is Not Concluded Within Sixty Days… Such Person Shall Be Released On Bail: MP High Court Bombay High Court Lifts Stay on Banks’ Fraud Proceedings Against Anil Ambani Preventive Detention Cannot Survive Without Supplying Relied Upon Documents: Karnataka High Court Reasserts Article 22(5) Safeguards Court Subordinate Who Attended Duty Drunk, Abused Advocates & Misbehaved With Judge's Family Gets No Mercy: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Removal From Service XXXVII Rule 3 CPC | Claim Of 24% Interest Without Prima Facie Contract Cannot Be Blindly Accepted In Summary Proceedings : Madras High Court On Summary Suit Defence Re-Testing Under NDPS Act Cannot Be a Tool to Overcome an Adverse Lab Report: J&K High Court Quashes Charge-Sheet After First Report Ruled Out Heroin Shocking And Disturbing That Cows Died Due To Starvation: Kerala High Court Pulls Up Travancore Devaswom Board Over Neglect Of Temple Gosala Promoter Cannot Retain Ownership By Merely Using The Word ‘Lease’: Bombay High Court Upholds Ownership Deemed Conveyance Under MOFA

Punjab and Haryana High Court Sets Aside Time-Barred Proceedings in Stamp Duty Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court declared the proceedings initiated under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as time-barred and set them aside. The case involved a petition filed by M/s Microtek Buildwell Private Limited against the State of Haryana and others. The court ruled that the proceedings, which were initiated after a period of more than nine years from the execution of the sale deed, were clearly barred by limitation.

Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill, presiding over the bench, emphasized the provision of Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, which specifies a three-year limitation period from the date of execution of the sale deed for initiating such proceedings. The court quoted, “A perusal of the aforesaid provisions shows that it is provided in unambiguous terms that the proceedings under Section 47 of the Indian Stamp Act can be initiated within a period of 3 years from the execution of the sale deed.”

The court accepted the arguments presented by the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Akshay Kumar Jindal, who highlighted that the proceedings were initiated at the instance of the vendor’s greed and were motivated by the subsequent increase in the value of the area. The court also noted that the complainant had previously filed a civil suit, which was dismissed due to the non-affixation of ad-valorem court fee.

The judgment further mentioned that the nature of the land at the time of execution of the sale deed is the relevant consideration for assessing the stamp duty, and subsequent changes in the land’s nature or value cannot be taken into account. The court concluded that the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner, including the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Gurugram Division, Gurugram, should be set aside.

This judgment serves as a significant decision clarifying the time limitation for initiating proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, providing clarity and certainty to parties involved in stamp duty matters.

Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill, in the judgment, stated, “A perusal of the aforesaid provisions shows that it is provided in unambiguous terms that the proceedings under Section 47 of the Indian Stamp Act can be initiated within a period of 3 years from the execution of the sale deed.”

Mr. Akshay Kumar Jindal, the counsel for the petitioner, argued, “The proceedings, as a matter of fact, have been initiated at the instance of the vendor on account of his greed since on account of subsequent development of the area, the value of the property stands enhanced.”

Date of Decision: 18.07.2023

M/s Microtek Buildwell Private Limited vs State of Haryana and others 

Latest Legal News