NASIRUDDIN & ANR. ETC. versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS

Citation: [2017] 12 S.C.R. 1073 · Decided: 06-12-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017) 12 S.C.R. 1073 
NASIRUDDIN & ANR. ETC. 
v. 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY 
& ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3695 of2009) 
DECEMBER 06, 2017 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Stamp Act, 1899 - ss. 2(12). 2(14), 2(16) and Art.35 of 
Schedule I - Respondent No.3-Corporation and appellants entered 
into a formal contract - Each appellant was to carry out the work c 
of collection of "Tehbazari" and "Parking Fees" in terms of contract 
- Dispute arose as to the true nature of the contract and stamp duty 
payable by the appellants - Corporation demanded requisite stamp 
duty payable under the Stamp Act whereas as per Collector of Stamps 
the appellants were liable to pay stamp duty@ Rs. 701- per thousand 
on the contract amount treating the co/lfract as Lease - High Court 
D 
upheld the demand raised by the Collector of Stamps - Held: The 
terms of the contract would show that it was meant to collect tolls 
(fees) called "Tehbazari" in local parlance from squatters, vendors, 
kiosks etc. and was for collecting parking fees - By awarding such 
contract to the appellants. the Corporation had let their right to the 
appellants to collect the fees from a class of persons and for carrying 
E 
on particular activity in the city- The contract satisfied the definition 
of the expression "instrument" as defined in s.2(14) of the Act 
because it created a right and liabili(v and lastly, it also satisfied 
the definition of expression "executed" and "execution" as defined 
in s.2(12) of the Act because it contained the signature of F 
contracting parties - Further, it related to the right to collect the 
tolls let by the Corporation to the person concerned. which square~v 
attrncts s.2(16)(c) of the Act and partakes the character of a 
"Lease" - Therefore, the contract in question is a "Lease" as de.fined 
in s.2(16)(c) of the Stamp Act and is accordingly chargeable to 
payment of stamp duly as per the rates prescribed in Art.35 of G 
Schedule 1 of the Stamp Act as "Lease". 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: l.l The contract in question show that it was meant 
to collect tolls (fees) called "Tehbazari" in local parlance from 
1073 
H 
1074 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 
A squatters, vendors, kiosks etc. and was for collecting parking 
fees. Such contract is regarded as an instrument by which tolls 
of any description are let. The contract was, therefore, for 
recovery of tolls and created rights and liabilities in favour of 
contracting parties qua each other. It cannot be disputed that 
B 
c 
D 
E 
the expression "tolls of any description" in clause (c) would 
include all kinds of levy, charges, fees etc. which the Corporation 
is entitled to charge under its Bye-laws (41). A/ortiori, the fees in 
question would also fall under Section 2(16)(c) of the Stamp Act. 
(Paras 16 and 211 [1080-B; 1081-EJ 
1.2 The contract in question also satisfied the definition of 
the expression "Instrument" as defined in Section 2(14) of the 
Stamp Act because it created a right and liability and lastly, it also 
satisfied the definition of expressi!Jn "executed" and "execution" 
as defined in Section 2 (12) of the Stamp Act· because it contained 
the signature of contracting parties. The case at hand relates to 
the right to collect the tolls let by the Corporation to the person 
concerned. It squarely attracts Section 2(16)(c) of the Stamp Act 
and partakes the character of a "Lease". Accordingly stamp duty 
is chargeable as per the rates prescribed in Article 35 of Schedule 
l of the Stamp Act as "Lease". [Paras 22, 26 and 27] (1081-F-G; 
1082-D-E) 
Mohammad Ali v. Board of Revenue, U.P. AIR 1987 
Allahabad 348 - approved. 
New Bus-Stand Shop Owners Association v. Corporation 
of Kozhikode & Anr. (2009) (10) SCC 455 : (2009) 14 
F 
SCR 793 - distinguished. 
Munindra Nath Upadhaya v. State of U.P. & Ors. (1995) 
2 UPLBEC 1789 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
G (1995) 2 UPLBEC 1789 
AIR 1987 Allahabad 348 
(2009) 14 SCR 793 
referred to 
approved 
distinguished 
Para 10 
Par:a 10 
Para 24 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3695 
of2009 
NASIRUDDIN & ANR. ETC. v. THE STATE OF UTTAR 
1075 
PRADESH THR. SEC. & ORS. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.05.2006 of the High Court 
A 
of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9661 of2005 
WITH 
C. A. Nos. 3714, 3709, 3705, 3699, 37! i and 3702 of2009. 
J itendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Adv., Anupam Lal Das, Anirudh Singh, 
B 
A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.