Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

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