# Devendra Singh v. The State of U.P. and another - **Citation:** (2010) 2 ILRA 602 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2010-05-25 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21008 of 2010 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/devendra-singh-v-the-state-of-u-p-and-another-41641 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Sri Somil Srivastava Sri Sahab Tiwari C.S.C. Indian Stamp Act-Section 33Determination of stamp duty-loan advance for establishing cold storageDocument executed for purpose of loanpetitioner claimed exemption from stamp duty under notification dated 10.06.98-authorities below refused the defence of petitioner as cold storage in not within meaning of "agriculturist or Agricultural purpose"-remission as per notification above not permissible. Held: Para 6 The instrument used for obtaining loan or financial assistance for establishing a cold storage is neither an instrument for acquisition of tractor or machinery relating to agricultural activity nor is an instrument executed by an agriculturist within the meaning of the aforesaid notification., According to Explanation I to the aforesaid notification the expression 'agriculturist' means a person engaged in any of the activities specified therein. The activities so specified does not cover the activities of running a cold storage. Case Law discussed: 1989 RD489 2 All] Devendra Singh V The State of U.P. and another 603 ## Text 602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010 release the vehicle pending trial as provided under Section 451 CrPC and later on to pass an order as to the final disposal of the vehicle as provided under Section 452 CrPC at the conclusion of the trial. If the complaint is not laid before the Magistrate within a reasonable time, it is always open to the owner of the vehicle to approach the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners in all the writ petitions can have their remedy under the law in the light of our aforegoing observations. In the end, we direct the respondents to act in accordance with the observations made in this judgment." 6. Here in this case before us, since no complaint seems to have been filed by the Transport Authority before the Magistrate competent to try the case, therefore, it is incumbent upon the Transport Authority to take a decision either to release the motor vehicle subject to furnishing the security to his satisfaction by the petitioner or to take the decision as to whether any offence is committed and the offence is compoundable and the petitioner is ready to compound or to file a complaint before the Magistrate competent to try the case pertaining to the offence if found committed with regard to the vehicle concerned. 7. Hence, we find it expedient to direct the autohrity concerned/ARTO, Saharanpur to take a decision and to decide the representation alleged to have been filed by the petitioner before him within a period of 15 days of filing this order before him. 8. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.05.2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21008 of 2010 Devendra Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State of U.P. and others ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Anupam Kulshrestha Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Somil Srivastava Sri Sahab Tiwari C.S.C. Indian Stamp Act-Section 33Determination of stamp duty-loan advance for establishing cold storageDocument executed for purpose of loanpetitioner claimed exemption from stamp duty under notification dated 10.06.98-authorities below refused the defence of petitioner as cold storage in not within meaning of "agriculturist or Agricultural purpose"-remission as per notification above not permissible. Held: Para 6 The instrument used for obtaining loan or financial assistance for establishing a cold storage is neither an instrument for acquisition of tractor or machinery relating to agricultural activity nor is an instrument executed by an agriculturist within the meaning of the aforesaid notification., According to Explanation I to the aforesaid notification the expression 'agriculturist' means a person engaged in any of the activities specified therein. The activities so specified does not cover the activities of running a cold storage. Case Law discussed: 1989 RD489 2 All] Devendra Singh V The State of U.P. and another 603 (Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.) 1. Heard Sri Anupam Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel. 2. Petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 5 jointly took financial assistant of Rs.10900000/- from the Central Bank of India for the purposes of establishing a cold storage. To secure the aforesaid loan petitioner executed a document. The aforesaid document was referred under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act for determination of the deficient stamp duty. The petitioner in the said proceedings claimed that the document is exempt from payment of stamp duty vide notification dated 10th June 1998 issued under Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act which provides for remission of stamp duty exceeding Rs. 100/- on every instrument employed for obtaining loan or other financial assistance for agricultural activity. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) vide order dated 7.6.2005 refused to accept the contention of the petitioner and held that activity of a cold storage is not exempt under the aforesaid notification and thus determined the deficiency to the tune of Rs. 7,63,000/-. The said order was modified by the order dated 30.7.2005 and the liability to pay the said stamp duty was apportioned between petitioner no.1 and the respondent no. 5 is in the ratio of 50:50. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner preferred a revision under Section 56 but the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 26.2.2010. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the document in question is exempt from stamp duty in view of the aforesaid notification dated 10th June 1998. 5. The relevant portion of the aforesaid notification issued under Section 9 of the Act reads as under:- "In exercise of the powers under clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 9 of the India Stamp Act, 1899 (Act No. II of 1899) as amended from time to time in its application to Uttar Pradesh, the Government is pleased to remit, with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, the stamp duty exceeding Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred) chargeable on every instrument employed for obtaining loan or other financial assistant (including a mortgage, charge, hypothecation or documents executed by sureties) for acquisition of tractor or machinery relating to agricultural activity where such instrument is executed by an agriculturist in favour of a Bank. " 6. The instrument used for obtaining loan or financial assistance for establishing a cold storage is neither an instrument for acquisition of tractor or machinery relating to agricultural activity nor is an instrument executed by an agriculturist within the meaning of the aforesaid notification., According to Explanation I to the aforesaid notification the expression 'agriculturist' means a person engaged in any of the activities specified therein. The activities so specified does not cover the activities of running a cold storage. 7. In Atma Ram Misra Vs. Bank of India 1989 RD489, this Court held that cold storages serve a useful purpose in 604 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010 advancing interest of agriculturist while considering the expression 'agriculturist' and agricultural purpose' used in context with U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973. However, the definition of 'agriculture and agricultural purpose' used therein can not be imported in context with the notification under this Act wherein word 'agriculturalist' has been used and has been defined differently in the explanation to the notification itself having a plain, simple and clear meaning which would not include activity of cold storage within those of an agriculturist. 8. In view of the above, the benefit of remission as per the above notification is not admissible to the petitioner. Therefore, the authorities have committed no error in refusing the relief as claimed by the petitioner. 9. The writ petition as such is devoid of merit and is dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SATYA POOT MEHROTRA, J. THE HONBLE S.C.AGARWAL, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24789 of 2010 Smt. Raj Rani Singh and another ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri H.A.B. Sinha Sri Archana Singh Counsel for the Respondent: Sri D. Vaish, C.S.C. Constitution of India Art 226 Writ Petition-alternative namely-order passed under section 13(4) of Securisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002-petitioner can approach before Debt Recovery tribunal for getting possession of secured property Petition not maintainable Held Para 15, 16 and 17 Even though, the petitioners may not have remedy under Section 17 of the aforesaid Act against the order passed under Section 14 of the aforesaid Act but the petitioners may approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal against the measures taken by the respondent no.4-Bank under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the aforesaid Act. Thus, the petitioners have got an alternative remedy under Section 17 of the aforesaid Act against the measure taken under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the aforesaid Act for taking possession of the property given as security. Reference in this regard may be made to a decision of this Court in Virendra Kumar Jaiswal V. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and another, 2009 (10) ADJ 203 (DB)=2010 (1) AWC 832 (DB). Having regard to the nature of controversy involved in the present Writ Petition, we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate that the petitioners be relegated to avail the alternative remedy of filing application/appeal under Section 17 of the aforesaid Act. Case law discussed: 2009 (10) ADJ 203 (DB),2010 (1) AWC 832 (DB). (Delivered by Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra, J.) 1. It appears that the petitioners took loan from the respondent no.4-Punjab National Bank.