Bombay High Court Dismisses Review Petition in Stamp Duty Penalty Case — No New Fact or Error Apparent on Record. Review sought on grounds of discovery of subsequent sale and excessive penalty, but court finds no due diligence or error apparent.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicants, original petitioners in Writ Petition No.7410 of 2002, filed a Review Petition No.64 of 2003 seeking review of an order dated 29th January 2003 passed by the Bombay High Court. The review was sought on two grounds: first, discovery of a new and important fact regarding the sale of the property by the respondents to a third party after the order; second, that the penalty imposed under the Stamp Act was ten times the stamp duty, whereas the maximum penalty could only be double the stamp duty. The court heard the applicants' advocate, but no one appeared for the respondents despite service. The court held that the alleged new fact of sale to a third party, even if discovered after the order, does not constitute a 'new and important fact' for review because the applicants failed to show that despite due diligence it could not have been discovered earlier. The second ground regarding excessive penalty was also not considered because it was not raised in the original petition and no error apparent on the face of the record was shown. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Review Petition - Discovery of New Fact - Due Diligence - For a fact to be considered 'new and important' for review, it must be shown that despite due diligence it could not have been discovered earlier - Mere subsequent knowledge does not suffice (Paras 2-3).

B) Stamp Act - Penalty - Limitation - The penalty under the Stamp Act cannot exceed double the stamp duty - However, the court did not consider this point as it was not raised earlier and no error apparent on record (Para 2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the review petition discloses any ground for review under the limited scope of review jurisdiction, specifically discovery of new and important fact or error apparent on the face of the record.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Review petition dismissed.

Law Points

  • Review petition
  • discovery of new fact
  • due diligence
  • error apparent on face of record
  • stamp duty penalty
  • limitation under Stamp Act
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2006 LawText (BOM) (09) 90

Review Petition No.64 of 2003 in Writ Petition No.7410 of 2002

2006-09-29

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J

Shri Ajay Samant for the Applicants

Shri Pitamber Kanhayalal Khattar and Shri Bharat Vasudeo Khattar

Shri Sadanand Harishchandra Honawar and Mrs. Vimala Sadanand Honawar

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Review petition against order in writ petition concerning stamp duty penalty.

Remedy Sought

Review of order dated 29th January 2003 in Writ Petition No.7410 of 2002.

Filing Reason

Alleged discovery of new fact (sale of property to third party) and excessive penalty under Stamp Act.

Previous Decisions

Order dated 29th January 2003 in Writ Petition No.7410 of 2002.

Issues

Whether the alleged new fact of sale to third party constitutes a ground for review. Whether the penalty imposed was excessive and constitutes an error apparent on record.

Submissions/Arguments

Applicants argued that a new fact regarding sale of property to a third party was discovered after the order. Applicants argued that penalty imposed was ten times the stamp duty, whereas maximum penalty is double the stamp duty.

Ratio Decidendi

For a fact to be considered 'new and important' for review, it must be shown that despite due diligence it could not have been discovered earlier. Mere subsequent knowledge does not suffice. Also, grounds not raised earlier and not constituting error apparent on record cannot be considered in review.

Judgment Excerpts

New and important material or evidence can be said to have discovered for the purpose of seeking review of an order only in cases where inspite of exercise of due diligence, the same could not have been within the knowledge or could not have been produced earlier by the party.

Procedural History

Writ Petition No.7410 of 2002 was disposed of by order dated 29th January 2003. The applicants filed Review Petition No.64 of 2003 seeking review of that order. The review petition was heard and dismissed on 29th September 2006.

Acts & Sections

  • Stamp Act:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Review Petition in Stamp Duty Penalty Case — No New Fact or Error Apparent on Record. Review sought on grounds of discovery of subsequent sale and excessive penalty, but court finds no due diligence or error apparent.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Disciplinary Order Against Clerk for Destruction of Court File - Interpolation of Order and Lack of Causal Link Found. The court held that the disciplinary authority's finding of guilt was not sustainable as the order to cal...