# Super Seal Flexible Hose Ltd., Noida v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 299
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-05
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 61914 of 2017
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Ajit Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/super-seal-flexible-hose-ltd-noida-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48018
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
Sections 33 & 47-A - UP Stamp (Valuation
of Property) Rules, 1997 - Rules 7, 8, 9
&10 - Lease deed executed - Earlier reply
to
the
recovery
notice
was
filed,
thereafter
a
report
was
called
on
13.04.2009, in pursuance whereof the
report dated 4.4.2016 was filed after 7
years.
Relying
upon
report
dated
4.4.2016, the impugned ex-parte order
was passed - Validity challenged - Held,
when on 4.4.2016 after a lapse of seven
years, the report had been filed then the
petitioner also ought to have been given
an opportunity to object to the report -
When the Collector was aware of the fact
that the petitioner had not appeared for
the last 70 dates and when the Collector
was also aware of the fact that the report,
which was called on 13.4.2009, was
submitted on 4.4.2016, then also the
Collector ought to have issued notices to
the petitioner to appear and to file his
objection to the report. (Para 17 and 19)
B. Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226
- Writ - Alternative remedy - Remedy of
statutory appeal, when is liable to be
ignored - High Court refused to relegate
the petitioner to avail the remedy of
appeal as the order impugned dated
28.8.2017 itself was an ex-parte order and
300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the petitioner was not heard before the
order was passed. (Para 19)
Writ petition partly allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

12 All. Super Seal Flexible Hose Ltd., Noida Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
299
Amendment Act. Its main goal was still the
conciliation and settlement of disputes in
relation to public utilities, with a decision
on merits always being the last resort.
Therefore,
we
hold
that
conciliation
proceedings under Section 22-C of the LSA
Act are mandatory in nature."

9. From perusal of the aforesaid, this
Court is of the opinion that the law is now
well settled that in the absence of following
the prescribed procedure as specially
provided under Section 22(C)(7) of the
Legal Services Authorities Amendment Act
by
the
Permanent
Lok Adalat,
the
order/award is vitiated.

10. In the present case, Permanent
Lok Adalat Agra does not follow the
aforesaid procedure as provided under the
Legal Services Authorities Amendment
Act, therefore, the award is vitiated and
illegal in the eyes of law, the same is liable
to be set aside and is hereby set aside.

11. Since no reply has been filed by
the complainant, he is directed to file reply
in the aforesaid case within three week
from today.

12. Permanent Lok Adalat Agra is
directed to pass fresh order after following
the complete procedure under the law as
well as the laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Canara Bank (supra)
most expeditiously and preferably within a
period of three months from the date reply
filed by the claimant/respondent.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 299
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 61914 of 2017
With
Writ C No. 30548 of 2008

Super Seal Flexible Hose Ltd., Noida
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prakhar Tandon, Sri V.K. Singh, Sri S.
Shekhar, Sri Nagendra Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
Sections 33 & 47-A - UP Stamp (Valuation
of Property) Rules, 1997 - Rules 7, 8, 9
&10 - Lease deed executed - Earlier reply
to
the
recovery
notice
was
filed,
thereafter
a
report
was
called
on
13.04.2009, in pursuance whereof the
report dated 4.4.2016 was filed after 7
years.
Relying
upon
report
dated
4.4.2016, the impugned ex-parte order
was passed - Validity challenged - Held,
when on 4.4.2016 after a lapse of seven
years, the report had been filed then the
petitioner also ought to have been given
an opportunity to object to the report -
When the Collector was aware of the fact
that the petitioner had not appeared for
the last 70 dates and when the Collector
was also aware of the fact that the report,
which was called on 13.4.2009, was
submitted on 4.4.2016, then also the
Collector ought to have issued notices to
the petitioner to appear and to file his
objection to the report. (Para 17 and 19)
B. Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226
- Writ - Alternative remedy - Remedy of
statutory appeal, when is liable to be
ignored - High Court refused to relegate
the petitioner to avail the remedy of
appeal as the order impugned dated
28.8.2017 itself was an ex-parte order and
300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the petitioner was not heard before the
order was passed. (Para 19)
Writ petition partly allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. M/s. Hero Motors Ltd. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2009 (1) ADJ 569
2.
Anshu
Chhabara
Vs
Collector
and
Commissioner, Jhansi Division; 2009 (1) AWC
512
3. Veer Bal Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2009 (2)
ADJ 481
4. Aegis B.P.O. Service Ltd. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.; 2011 (1) AWC 33
5. Satya Vijay Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2012 (6)
ADJ 188
6. Duncans Industries Ltd. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
AIR 2000 SC 355
(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.)

1. Writ-C No.30548 of 2008 was filed
with a prayer that the notice dated 5.5.2008
which was issued by the Collector, Gautam
Budh Nagar and the letter dated 11.1.2008
which was issued by the respondent no.3Sub-Registrar, Gautam Budh Nagar be
quashed.

2. The notice which was served upon
the petitioner was a notice under sections
17, 27, 33, 40, 47-A and 64 of the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 read with Rules 7, 8, 9
and 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp
(Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997. The
notice was to the effect that the document
i.e. the lease deed which was executed by
the U.P. State Industrial Development
Corporation-respondent no.4 (hereinafter
referred
to
as
the
"UPSIDC")
on
17.12.2007 had not stated about certain
properties which were leased out to the
petitioner and, therefore, as per the notice
there was a shortage of stamp duty to the
extent of Rs.74,08,000/-. The petitioner
was required to appear on 4.6.2008 and was
required to place before the Stamp
Authorities its version. Apparently, the
notice was based upon an inspection report
of the Sub-Registrar of the Registration
Department dated 11.1.2008. When the writ
petition was filed, an order was passed by a
Division Bench of this Court on 2.7.2008.
The same is being reproduced here as under
:-

"1. Heard Sri V.K. Singh in
support of this petition. Sri Goswami
appears for Respondents no.1, 2 and 3. Sri
Mahesh
Narain
Singh
appears
for
Respondent no.4. Sri V.K. Singh states that
he will file reply to the notice which the
petitioner has received.

2. Matter to stand over to
30.7.2008."

3. As per the order, the petitioner was
required to file a reply to the notice which
was challenged in the writ petition.

4. When on 5.12.2017 a citation to
appear was issued by the respondent no.3
i.e. the Tehsildar, Gautam Budh Nagar for
depositing Rs.1,48,16,000/- as deficient
stamp duty, the petitioner filed Writ-C
No.61914 of 2017 for quashing of the
citation dated 5.12.2017 and for the
quashing of the recovery certificate which
was issued earlier by the Collector on
10.11.2017. The petitioner also had sought
the quashing of the order dated 28.8.2017
which was the order of the Collector under
section 33/47-A of the Indian Stamp Act,
1899. The complete copy of this order was
brought on record by a Supplementary
Affidavit dated 28.9.2022. The Writ-C
No.61914 of 2017 was entertained by this
Court and order dated 21.12.2017 was
passed which is being reproduced here as
under :-
12 All. Super Seal Flexible Hose Ltd., Noida Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
301

"Connect
with
Writ
C
No.30548/2008.

Learned Standing Counsel has
accepted
notice
on
behalf
of
the
respondents,
who
may
file
counter
affidavits within a month. Rejoinder if any,
within two weeks thereafter.

List in the week commencing
12.3.2018.

Till the next date of listing, the
recovery proceedings pursuant to citation
dated 5.12.2017, shall remain stayed,
provided the petitioner deposits 1/3rd of the
entire deficiency with upto-date-interest,
before the Collector concerned within 2
months from today. Previous deposit, if
any, shall stand adjusted.

However, in the event of default,
the interim order shall stand automatically
vacated."

5. Thereafter, affidavits between the
parties were exchanged. However, since the
petitioner was aggrieved by the fact that the
High Court had directed by its order dated
21.12.2017 to deposit 1/3rd of the entire
amount of deficiency as was found by the
Stamp Authorities, the petitioner had filed a
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.3465 of
2018. The Supreme Court in the SLP
refused to interfere but directed the
petitioner to bring on record all the
Government Orders before the High Court
which it was producing before the Supreme
Court and the SLP was finally disposed of.
While disposing the SLP, the amount which
was directed to be deposited by the
petitioner was deferred. The order of the
Supreme Court is being reproduced here as
under :-

"Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned
senior counsel appearing for the petitioner,
has
invited
our
reference
to
the
Government Order dated 06.07.2006. It is
submitted that in a case of undisputed
demerger, the petitioner is entitled to the
benefit of the Deferment Order and,
therefore, the stamp duty need not be paid
afresh.

The petitioner is permitted to file
an application before the High Court on
this specific contention within a period of
three weeks from today, in which case, we
request the High Court to consider the
application for modification of the interim
order
dated
21.12.2017
and
pass
appropriate orders within thirty days from
the date of filing of the application.

Till orders are passed on the
application to be filed by the petitioner, the
direction for deposit may be deferred.

In view of the above, the Special
Leave Petition is disposed of.

Pending
Interlocutory
Applications, if any, stand disposed of."

6. The matter was heard on
21.10.2022. Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri S.Shekhar and Sri
Nagendra Singh, Advocates argued for the
petitioner.
Sri
Nimai
Das,
learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel assisted
by Sri R.D. Mishra, Advocate argued for
the State and Sri Mahesh Narain Singh
appeared for respondent no.4-UPSIDC in
Writ-C No.30548 of 2008.

7. Facts leading to the filing of the
two writ petitions are that M/s. Super Seals
India Limited (the transferor company) had
two divisions namely, Sealing Products
Division and Hose Division. The transferee
company i.e. the petitioner-Super Seal
Flexible Hose Limited was dealing only in
the
Hose
Division.
Therefore,
the
company-M/s. Super Seals India Limited
(the transferor company) demerged its
Sealing Product Division from the Hose
Division and the Hose Division of Super
302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Seals India Limited was amalgamated with
the petitioner company M/s. Super Seal
Flexible Hose Limited.

8. The transferor company, therefore,
had filed an application under section
391(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 before
the Delhi High Court for the approval of
the Scheme of Arrangement. The Delhi
High Court as per its order dated
22.11.2006 sanctioned the Scheme as was
placed before it and, therefore, the shares
which were of the transferor company to
the extent they dealt with Hose Division
stood transferred to the transferee company.
The Delhi High Court while sanctioning
the Scheme directed that the transferor
company and the transferee company
would comply with the statutory provisions
and if the stamp duty was payable then it
shall be paid in accordance with law. The
operative portion of the order dated
22.11.2006 passed by the Delhi High Court
is being reproduced here as under :-

"In view of the undertakings
given above and the affidavit dated 20th
November, 2006 of Mr. Deepak Talwar
agreeing to change the appointed dated to
1st December, 2005, I allow the present
petition. Subject to above modification and
undertakings, the scheme is sanctioned.
The transferor company and the transferee
company will comply with the statutory
provisions. Certified copy of the order will
be filed within the ROC within five weeks
from the date of the order. Stamp duty, if
payable, shall be paid in accordance with
law.

The petitions are disposed
of."

9. After having complied with all the
formalities, the transferee company i.e. the
petitioner took over the manufacturing of
flexible hose pipes. From the record, we
find that after the Scheme of the transferor
and transferee company was sanctioned
under section 391(2) and Section 394 read
with sections 100 and 103 of the
Companies Act, 1956, all formalities as
were required to be undergone as per the
order of the Delhi High Court dated
22.11.2006 were undergone. The petitioner,
which
was
the
transferee
company,
thereafter became entitled to get its name
recorded in the place of M/s. Super Seals
India Limited. Here it may be noted that
M/s. Super Seals India Limited and the
petitioner
Super
Seal
Flexible
Hose
Limited, both had separate lease deeds with
the UPSIDC and, therefore, now the
necessity arose to get only the name of
Super Seal Flexible Hose Limited recorded
in the records of UPSIDC. The UPSIDC
thereafter taking into consideration the
change which had taken place, executed a
fresh lease deed in favour of the petitioner
Super Seal Flexible Hose Limited on
17.12.2007.
This
document
dated
17.12.2007 is the vortex of all controversy.
It appears that an inspection was conducted
by
the
Sub-Registrar,
Registration
Department of Gautam Budh Nagar on
24.12.2007 and it was found that in the
total area of the plot no.B-7 which was
measuring 19992.78 sq. meters, 11000 sq.
meters (66% of the land) had constructions
and there was a factory for the purposes of
manufacturing of hose pipes running in the
constructed portion and, therefore, the SubRegistrar
found
that
stamp
worth
Rs.74,08,000/- was deficient on the lease
deed and thereafter he submitted his report
dated 11.1.2008. The Collector, Gautam
Budh Nagar thereafter under sections 17,
27, 33, 40, 47-A and 64 of the Indian
Stamp Act 1899 read with Rules 7, 8, 9 and
10 of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of
12 All. Super Seal Flexible Hose Ltd., Noida Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
303
Property) Rules, 1997 issued a notice to the
petitioner to show cause as to why the
deficiency of stamp be not recovered from
the petitioner. This notice was issued on
5.5.2008.
The
petitioner
thereafter
challenged the inspection report and the
notice by means of Writ-C No.30548 of
2008.

10. The petitioner has filed the order
sheet of the case before the Collector and
from the order sheet it appears that on
4.6.2008, 16.6.2008, 27.6.2008 dates were
fixed and the petitioner continuously
appeared and prayed for time for filing of
the objection. On 10.7.2008 the order sheet
indicates that the petitioner appeared and
filed its objection to the show cause notice
and also submitted certain evidence. The
case was thereafter fixed for 16.7.2008 for
arguments. On 16.7.2008 the Presiding
Office was busy and, therefore, the case
could not be taken up and 21.7.2008 was
fixed as the next date for arguments. On
21.7.2008, arguments were heard and the
case was fixed for orders on 4.8.2008. On
4.8.2008 again the officer was busy and
therefore, the case could not be taken up.
On 10.8.2008 again, date was fixed for
1.9.2008. On 1.9.2008 again the officer was
busy and the case was fixed for 18.9.2008
on which date again the matter was
adjourned for 16.10.2008. On 16.10.2008,
the officer was again busy and the case was
fixed for 19.11.2008. On 19.11.2008, the
officer was once again busy and the case
was adjourned for 19.1.2009. Again the
case could not be taken up and was fixed
for 7.2.2009. On 7.2.2009, the officer was
busy and the case was adjourned for
16.3.2009. On that date the petitioner had
taken time and the arguments of D.G.C.
(Revenue) were heard and the case was
fixed
for
23.3.2009
for orders.
On
23.3.2009 again date was fixed for
13.4.2009. On 13.4.2009, an order was
passed that the plant, machinery and the
factory were to be inspected by the
Executive Engineer of the Prantiya Khand,
Lok Nirman Vibhag, Gautam Budh Nagar
and the case was thereafter fixed for
7.8.2009. After 7.8.2009, the order sheet
indicates that only general dates were fixed
for
9.1.2010,
12.4.2010,
21.6.2010,
13.9.2010,
10.12.2010,
14.3.2011,
13.6.2011,
23.9.2011,
16.12.2011,
19.6.2012 and 20.7.2012. On 20.7.2012
there appears to be some order in the order
sheet by which the report of the Executive
Engineer was awaited. On 14.9.2012 again
a date was fixed for 24.12.2012. On
24.12.2012, date was fixed for 14.1.2013.
Thereafter date was again fixed for
11.2.2013 and thereafter again 18.3.2013
and 22.4.2013 were fixed. On all these
dates the report of the Executive Engineer
was awaited. On 22.4.2013, it appears that
the petitioner did not appear and the case
was fixed for 23.5.2013 on which date
again the report of the Executive Engineer
was not there and the case was adjourned
for
17.6.2013.
Thereafter
15.7.2013,
2.8.2013, 16.8.2013, 26.8.2013, 13.9.2013,
7.10.2013,
11.11.2013,
2.12.2013,
23.12.2013,
13.1.2014,
27.1.2014,
24.2.2014, 28.3.2014, 5.5.2014, 2.6.2014,
30.6.2014,
28.7.2014,
18.8.2014,
12.9.2014,
27.10.2014,
1.12.2014,
5.1.2015, 9.3.2015, 6.4.2015, 27.4.2015,
25.5.2015,
22.6.2015,
20.7.2015,
17.8.2015,
12.10.2015,
2.11.2015,
30.11.2015,
14.12.2015,
18.1.2016,
8.2.2016 and 7.3.2016 were fixed but no
report from the Public Works Department
was
presented
before
the
Prescribed
Authority.
Suddenly,
on
4.4.2016,
it
appears that the report was placed and on
that date the petitioner was not present. Yet,
the
case
was
fixed
for
18.4.2016.
Thereafter the order sheet reveals that dates
304 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
were
fixed
for
2.5.2016,
23.5.2016,
27.6.2016, 11.7.2016, 8.8.2016, 5.9.2016,
19.9.2016,
24.10.2016,
28.11.2016,
26.12.2016,
23.1.2017,
13.2.2017,
20.3.2017,
24.4.2017,
22.5.2017,
12.6.2017, 3.7.2017 and 31.7.2017. On all
these dates the petitioner had not appeared
and on 14.8.2017, the case was ordered to
proceed ex-parte against the petitioner and
the opportunity to place its side of the case
was withdrawn. The DGC (Revenue)
ofcourse was heard in detail and the case
was fixed for 28.8.2017 for orders. On
28.8.2017, the impugned order was passed.
In pursuance of the impugned order, a
recovery
certificate
was
issued
on
10.11.2017 by the Collector and the
Collector thereafter forwarded the matter to
the Tehsildar to recover the arrears by
recovering them as arrears of land revenue.

11. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner
has filed the instant writ petition.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner
essentially made the following submissions
:-

i. When the transferor company
i.e. M/s. Super Seals India Limited
demerged its Sealing Product Division
from the Hose Division and the Hose
Division got merged with the transferee
company namely Super Seal Flexible Hose
Limited then the scheme was placed before
the Delhi High Court which sanctioned the
scheme and it was categorically stated in
the order that the transferor company and
the transferee company would comply with
all the statutory provisions. It had further
stated that the certified copy of the order of
the Delhi High Court would be placed
before the Registrar of the Companies and
all
necessary
formalities
would
be
completed. Further the order of the Delhi
High Court dated 22.11.2006 had stated
that if any stamp was payable then it shall
be paid in accordance with law. Learned
counsel, therefore, submitted that if there
was any transfer, it was between the
transferor company and the transferee
company and whatever stamp had to be
levied, was also levied. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has submitted that any stamp
which was leviable had to be levied as per
the judgment reported in 2009 (1) ADJ 569
: M/s. Hero Motors Ltd. vs. State of U.P.
& Others.

ii. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that both the transferor
company and the transferee company had
separate leases with the UPSIDC and it was
only to smoothen matters, the UPSIDC,
after entering the name of the petitionercompany, requested the petitioner to enter
into a fresh lease deed so that with regard
to the land over which structures of the
transferor company stood could be mutated
in the name of the transferee company i.e.
the petitioner Super Seal Flexible Hose
Limited in its records.

iii. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that when the lease
was signed on 19.12.2007 between the
petitioner
Super
Seal
Flexible
Hose
Limited with the UPSIDC, only the land
was the subject matter of the lease. All
transfer of the factories etc. of the
transferor company was already stamped as
per the order of the Delhi High Court dated
22.11.2006 and, therefore, the lease viz.-aviz. the UPSIDC and the petitioner could
be stamped only with regard to the land
which was the subject matter of the lease.

iv. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that if the order sheet of
the case which was proceeded with before
the Collector, was seen then it would be
clear that the Collector had proceeded with
the case in a very lackadaisical manner.
12 All. Super Seal Flexible Hose Ltd., Noida Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
305
Notice was issued to the petitioner on
5.5.2008. The petitioner had appeared and
was sincerely pursuing the matter. On
10.7.2008, the petitioner had also submitted
his objection to the notice and had also
filed all the evidence and thereafter
continuously only dates were fixed despite
the fact that the petitioner had appeared.
Till 13.4.2009 the petitioner had appeared
but when on that date a report was called
for from the Executive Engineer, Public
Works Department, the Collector as also
the petitioner thereafter awaited the report
from
the
Executive
Engineer.
The
petitioner, it appears, began to lose interest
in the case as only dates were being fixed.
Learned counsel submitted that ideally the
petitioner ought to have appeared on all the
dates fixed but when the Prescribed
Authority from the order sheet was seeing
that the petitioner had stopped attending the
proceedings after 13.4.2009 then it was the
duty of the Prescribed Authority to have
issued notices afresh, specially when a
report had come on record on 4.4.2016 and
which necessarily had to be objected to.

v.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner states that when the report
ultimately was produced on 4.4.2016, at
least a notice ought to have been issued to
the petitioner for appearing and for
objecting to the notice. Learned counsel,
therefore, submits that the order dated
14.8.2017, by which it was decided to
proceed ex-parte against the petitioner and
by which the opportunity to adduce
evidence by the petitioner was closed, was
an absolutely illegal order. He, therefore,
submits that the impugned order dated
28.8.2017 was also absolutely an illegal
order.

vi.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
submits
that
definitely
the
objections of the petitioner were on record.
The objection could have been looked into
before the passing of the order. He, however,
submits that instead of looking into the
objection, the Collector had only relied upon
the order dated 14.8.2017 by which the case
was ordered to proceed ex-parte.

vii. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that even if the
Collector was passing the order ex-parte then
he could not have relied upon the ex-parte
report of the Sub-Registrar, Gautam Budh
Nagar dated 11.1.2008 and he should have
personally visited the spot and thereafter
should have come to the conclusion as to
what was the deficiency in the document.
Learned counsel submitted that the report
could have been used to initiate the
proceedings but could not have been used to
finally decide the deficiency. He relied upon a
judgment of this Court dated 4.3.2005 passed
in Writ Petition No.36661 of 2004 (Ram
Khelawan alias Bachcha vs. State of U.P. &
Ors.). He also relied, for laying stress further
on this issue, on the judgments of this Court
in Anshu Chhabara vs. Collector and
Commissioner, Jhansi Division reported in
2009 (1) AWC 512 and in the case of Veer
Bal Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported
in 2009 (2) ADJ 481.

viii. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that when the report was
called for from the Public Works Department
on 13.4.2009 and the same was submitted on
4.4.2016 then definitely the petitioner
expected a notice from the Authorities to
present himself and also to object to the
report.

ix.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner further submitted that the recital in
the order that the petitioner had objected to
the inspection which was sought to be done
by the Executive Engineer was absolutely
baseless.

x.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner further submitted that the penalty
which had been imposed was also illegal as
306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the same had been imposed without
recording any reason. To bolster this
argument of his, learned counsel relied
upon the judgments of this Court in Aegis
B.P.O. Service Ltd. vs. State of U.P. &
Ors. reported in 2011 (1) AWC 33 and in
Satya Vijay vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
reported in 2012 (6) ADJ 188.

xi. Learned counsel also relied
upon a Government Order dated 6.7.2006
which dealt with cases of undisputed
demerger.

13. In reply, Sri Nimai Das, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1,
2 and 3 which are the State respondents in
both the writ petitions submitted that when
the authority concerned has to come to a
conclusion as to what was the stamp
payable on a document then it had to see all
the facts and circumstances and had to take
into account the intentions of the parties.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
Sri Nimai Das has submitted that when the
lease deed transferred a certain land in
favour of the petitioner then all plants and
machineries which were established on the
land should have been taken into account
after dealing with the valuation of the
property for concluding as to what stamp
had to be levied. Sri Nimai Das submitted
that there was no defect in the notice and
the notice ought to have been replied to and
contested by the petitioner. He, therefore,
submitted that no fault could be found in
the
order
dated
28.8.2017.
Learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel relied
upon a decision of the Supreme Court in
Duncans Industries Ltd. vs. State of U.P.
& Ors. reported in AIR 2000 SC 355 to
support his arguments. Learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel further submitted
that the order impugned in the Writ-C
No.61914 of 2017 was appellable and the
writ petition may not be entertained.

14. A perusal of the counter affidavit
filed by UPSIDC shows that the petitioner
was given only the land on account of the
lease which was executed by the UPSIDC.

15. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, this Court is of the view that the
order dated 28.8.2017 which was passed by
the Collector under section 33/47A of the
India Stamp Act, 1899 cannot be sustained
in the eyes of law inasmuch as the manner
in which the order was passed was not
correct.

16. From the record the Court finds
that a notice was issued to the petitioner on
5.5.2008. The petitioner thereafter had
appeared and on 10.7.2008 had filed
objections to the show-cause notice. He had
also submitted certain evidence which
according to it were in its favour.
Thereafter from the order sheet, which has
been filed by the petitioner along with the
rejoinder affidavit, it becomes clear that
almost 70 dates were fixed. The petitioner
had continued to appear. On 13.4.2009 an
order was passed that the plant, machinery
and the factory were to be inspected by the
Executive Engineer of the Prantiya Khand,
Lok Nirman Vibhag, Gautam Budh Nagar.
Thereafter also several dates were fixed but
on all these dates neither was the report
filed by the Executive Engineer nor was the
case taken up and after 22.4.2013 the
petitioner had stopped appearing. Even
after 22.4.2013 number of dates were fixed
and the case was not taken up. Ultimately
when on 4.4.2016, the report of the
Executive Engineer of the Public Works
Department was filed, the petitioner had no
knowledge of the filing of the report and
the case proceeded ex-parte by an order
dated 14.8.2017 and ultimately it was
decided on 28.8.2017. Ideally, as the
petitioner's
counsel
had
argued,
the
12 All. Super Seal Flexible Hose Ltd., Noida Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
307
petitioner ought to have appeared on all the
dates. However, the Court finds that when
on 13.4.2009 the Executive Engineer of the
Prantiya Khand, Public Works Department,
Gautam Budh Nagar was directed to file
the inspection report after a due inspection
and after that when he had not filed the
report on almost 50 dates, it was but natural
that the petitioner had stopped appearing.
The petitioner had no knowledge of the fact
that the report was ultimately filed on
4.4.2016. The Court is, therefore, of the
view that when the Prescribed Authority
was looking at the order sheet and and was
seeing that the petitioner was not appearing
for the past so many dates, then a notice
ought to have been given to the petitioner
to appear in the case.

17. What is more, when on 4.4.2016
after a lapse of seven years when the report
had been filed then the petitioner also ought
to have been given an opportunity to object
to the report. The report had stated that the
petitioner had not allowed the Executive
Engineer to inspect the premises. This the
petitioner had stated in the writ petition was
a false fact. All these facts could have been
resolved had an opportunity been given to
the petitioner to object to the report.

18. Further the Court finds that two
firms had merged by an order of the Delhi
High Court dated 22.11.2006 wherein it
was held that the stamp duty, if any was
payable by the transferee company, would
be paid in accordance with law. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has argued that
any stamp duty which was payable on a
merger had to be paid as per the law laid
down in the judgment reported in 2009 (1)
ADJ 569 : M/s. Hero Motors Ltd. vs.
State of U.P. & Others and therefore, the
question for paying stamp duty on the plant
and machinery again did not arise. The
Court definitely is of the view that the
Prescribed Authority ought to have looked
into this aspect of the matter. The merger
had taken place between the transferor
company namely M/s. Super Seals India
Limited and the transferee
company
namely Super Seal Flexible Hose Limited
as per the order of the Delhi High Court
dated 22.11.2006. If any stamp duty had to
be imposed, it must have been imposed at
that point of time itself. What is more, the
Court finds that even the stamp duty which
was
leviable
at
the
time
of
the
merger/demerger was also not a point in
issue in the instant case. The only issue
which was there before the Prescribed
Authority was as to what was the property
which was being leased out by the UPSIDC
to the petitioner-company. The Court finds
that only the land was the subject matter of
the transfer by means of a lease. When the
Additional Chief Standing Counsel argued
by taking support of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Duncans Industries
Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in
AIR 2000 SC 355 then definitely the Court
went through that judgment and found that
it was with regard to transfer which had
taken place on account of a deed. If
paragraph 10 of the judgment is seen, then
it becomes clear that even the deed which
was the subject matter before the Stamp
Authorities
was
a
sale
deed
which
contained the details of all the plant etc.
which were being transferred. In the instant
case, if the lease deed is perused it would
become apparently clear that only the land
measuring 19992.78 sq. meters, [11000 sq.
meters (66% of the land) which was
transferred by the transferee company], was
to be registered and, therefore, the Court is
also of the view that the Prescribed
Authority erred in law while taking into
account the plant and machinery which
were situate over the land in question. The
308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court also finds from the order dated
28.8.2017 that the Prescribed Authority i.e.
the
Collector
had
relied
upon
the
submissions
made
by
the
District
Government Counsel who had argued the
matter and had laid stress on the issue that
the petitioner had not appeared for almost
70 dates. The Court is of the view that this
fact should have definitely been taken into
account and the Collector should have at
least issued a notice to the petitioner to
appear in the case. The Court is also of the
view that when the Executive Engineer had
come up with the report and had stated in
the report that the petitioner had created
hindrance at the time of inspection then
also the petitioner should have been given
an opportunity to rebut the averments made
in the report. Still further, the Court is of
the view that the stamp Authority passed
the order relying upon an ex-parte report
dated 11.1.2008 of the Sub-Registrar,
Gautam Budh Nagar. The ex-parte report
could have been used for initiating a case
but it could not have been used for deciding
the case. Even if the Collector had to
decide the case without issuing notice to
the petitioner then it would have been in
the fitness of things that he should have
visited the spot in question and should
thereafter have concluded as to what was
the valuation on which the stamp duty
ought to have been imposed. Still further,
the Court is of the view that no reason has
been given while imposing the penalty.

19.

In
his
arguments,
learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel had
argued that the petitioner had an alternative
remedy of filing an appeal under the Stamp
Act. However, we are not relegating the
petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal as
we find that the order impugned dated
28.8.2017 itself is an ex-parte order as the
petitioner was not heard before the order
was passed. When the Collector was aware
of the fact that the petitioner had not
appeared for the last 70 dates and when the
Collector was also aware of the fact that the
report which was called on 13.4.2009 was
submitted on 4.4.2016, then also the
Collector ought to have issued notices to the
petitioner to appear and to file his objection
to the report.

20. All these having not been done, we
are definitely of the view that the order
dated 28.8.2017 cannot be sustained in the
eyes of law and, therefore, has to be setaside and also since the order is an ex-parte
one, we find that the question of relegating
the petitioner to file an appeal does not arise.
The order dated 28.8.2017 which was an exparte one, is, therefore, being quashed and is
being set-aside. The recovery proceeding
initiated by the recovery certificate dated
10.11.2017 is also quashed and is set aside.
The matter is being remitted back to the
Collector to decide the matter afresh. He
shall now issue fresh notice to the petitioner.
If the need arises for an inspection, he shall
also get the inspection done of the premises
and only thereafter would he decide the
case. Also, if any penalty is to be imposed
then reasons would have to be given. The
whole exercise shall be completed within a
period of six months. The liability shall be
assessed as would have been there on the
date when the lease was executed.

21. Since we find that there is an order
dated 14.8.2017 by which the case was
ordered to be proceeded ex-parte and the
opportunity to place the petitioner's case was
withdrawn, we also set-aside the order dated
14.8.2017.

22. The writ petition being Writ-C
No.61914 of 2017 is, therefore, partly
allowed.
12 All. State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Kumar Duggal
309

23. Since, we are not setting aside the
notice dated 5.5.2008, the writ petition
being Writ-C No.30548 of 2008 stands
dismissed.

24. Also, we are not elaborating on
the Government order dated 6.7.2006 as
that appears to be with regard to the stamp
duty leviable in the cases of undisputed
demerger.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 309
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

Government Appeal No. 2075 of 1987

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Krishna Kumar Duggal
 ...Accused-Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri K.K. Arora, Sri Shashank Shekhar, Sri
Abhishek Srivastava, Sri Ashutosh Kumar
Tiwari

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 378 - Appeal in case of
acquittal - It is an established principle
that while exercising appellate powers,
even if two reasonable views/conclusions
are possible on the basis of the evidence
on record, the appellate Court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded
by the trial Court - Interference with an
acquittal order can only be justified when
it is based on a perverse view - if the
appellate court is reversing the trial
court's order of acquittal, it should give
proper weight and consideration to the
presumption of innocence in favour of
accused, and to the principle that such a
presumption sands reinforced, reaffirmed
and strengthened by the trial court - In
acquittal appeals, the appellate Court is
not required to rewrite the judgment or to
give fresh reasonings, when the reasons
assigned by the Court below are found to
be just and proper (Para 14, 19, 23)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs St.of Kerala
& anr., (2006) 6 S.C.C. 39

2. Chandrappa Vs St.of Karn., (2007) 4 S.C.C.
415

3. St.Of Goa Vs Sanjay Thakran & anr. (2007) 3
S.C.C. 75

4. St.Of U. P. Vs Ram Veer Singh & ors. 2007
A.I.R. S.C.W. 5553

5. Girja Prasad (dead) By L.R.S Vs St.of M.P.
2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5589

6. Luna Ram Vs Bhupat Singh & ors. (2009) Scc 749

7. Mookkiah & anr. Vs State, Rep. By The
Inspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu", Reported In
Air 2013 Sc 321

8. St.of Karn.Vs Hemareddy", Air 1981, Sc 1417

9. Shivasharanappa & ors. Vs St.of Karn.Jt 2013
(7) Sc 66

10. St.of Pun. Vs Madan Mohan Lal Verma
(2013) 14 Scc 153

11. Jayaswamy Vs St.of Karn., (2018) 7 Scc 219

12. Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan Vs St.of Guj.,
(2020) 14 SC 750

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.