Madan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others</B>

Madan Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Feb 09, 1999

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/467353

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/467353
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: B.K. Roy and;Yatindra Singh, JJ.
Decided On: Feb 09, 1999
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 19223 of 1992
Subject: Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

(i) Property - payment of stamp duty - Section 47A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - stamp duty required to be paid by petitioner on account of lease in his favour - the issue of initiation action under Section 48 in event of non-payment to be decided according to judgment of five Judge Full Bench overruling three-Judge B...

Key legal issue: Property
Acts & sections: Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Sections 47A and 48; Constitution of India - Article 141

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Madan Singh

Advocate H.S. Nigam, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P. and Others

Advocate S.C.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Sections 47A and 48; Constitution of India - Article 141
Reported In: 1999(2)AWC996

Excerpt

(i) property - payment of stamp duty - section 47a of indian stamp act, 1899 - stamp duty required to be paid by petitioner on account of lease in his favour - the issue of initiation action under section 48 in event of non-payment to be decided according to judgment of five judge full bench overruling three-judge bench judgment. (ii) dismissal of special leave petition - article 141 of constitution of india - limine dismissal of special leave petition or without laying down any law does not operate as res-judicata - no law declared to constitute binding precedent under article 141 of constitution of india. - - . 1997 acj 631, reversing the earlier full bench decision is not a good law inasmuch as it has overlooked the fact of dismissal of the state's s. was dismissed, was binding on the five judges full bench decision as well as on us and thus, we are required to set aside the impugned direction and allow this writ petition. state of bihar 1994(4)scale344 ,had clearly ruled that dismissal of special leave petition by a non-speaking order does not imply approval of the impugned judgment......be allowed. (ii) the five judges full bench of this court in civil misc. writ petition no. 6325 of 1993. smt. guddi v. state of u. p.. 1997 acj 631, reversing the earlier full bench decision is not a good law inasmuch as it has overlooked the fact of dismissal of the state's s.l.p. and thus is not a binding precedent. 3. when we enquired from sri nigam as to whether the hon'ble supreme court had dismissed the special leave petition filed by state of u. p. after recording any reason, he frankly answered that no speaking order was passed but yet in view of its latest two judges division bench decision in sree narayana dharma sangam trust v. swami prakashananda and others 1998 (1) awc 365 (sc), even orders passed by the supreme court dismissing the special leave petition in limine will have the effect of merger of the judgment of the high court in the supreme court and thus the order by which the special leave petition of the state of u. p. was dismissed, was binding on the five judges full bench decision as well as on us and thus, we are required to set aside the impugned direction and allow this writ petition.4. the hon'ble supreme court in uday pratap singh v. state of bihar : 1994(4)scale344 , had clearly ruled that dismissal of special leave petition by a non-speaking order does not imply approval of the impugned judgment. it laid down in (i) yogendra narayan chaudhary v. union of india air 1996 sc 751 and (ii) kirloskar brothers ltd. v. e.s.i. corporation : (1996)illj 1156 sc , that in limine dismissal of s.l.p. or without laying down any law does not operate as res judicata. same view was taken by it in union of india v. sube ram, : (1997)9scc69 ; union of india v. sher singh : air 1997 sc1796 ; c. e. d. v. pratap singhji : [1987]167itr210(sc) and mir osman ali khan v. c. w. t. : [1986]162itr888(sc) . thus, there is no law declared to constitute a bindingprecedent under article 141 of the constitution on us.5. judicial discipline requires us to follow.....

Full Judgment

B.K. Roy and Yatindra Singh, JJ.

1. The prayer of the petitioner is to quash the order dated 10th February. 1992 as contained in Annexure-2. Annexure-2 contains a copy of letter dated 10.2.1992 issued by the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Denradun to the petitioner stating, inter alia, that in furtherance of the notices dated 1.10.1991. 9.11.1991 and 7.1.1992, he is being informed that a sum of Rs. 43.500 as stamp fee is to be paid by him on account of lease in his favour thereby it is expected that he will deposit the said amount within one week and in the event of its non-payment, action under Section 48 of the Stamp Act will be taken.

2. Sri H. S. Nigam, learned counsel appearing in support of this writ petition contended as follows :

(i) The ratio laid down by the three Judges Full Bench decision of our Court in Board of Revenue v. Mulakh Raj and another 1984 ACJ 99, is squarely in favour of the petitioner which had merged in the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition preferred by State of U. P. against the three Judges Full Bench decision andaccordingly this writ petition be allowed.

(ii) The Five Judges Full Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6325 of 1993. Smt. Guddi v. State of U. P.. 1997 ACJ 631, reversing the earlier Full Bench decision is not a good law inasmuch as it has overlooked the fact of dismissal of the State's S.L.P. and thus is not a binding precedent.

3. When we enquired from Sri Nigam as to whether the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by State of U. P. after recording any reason, he frankly answered that no speaking order was passed but yet in view of its latest two Judges Division Bench decision in Sree Narayana Dharma Sangam Trust v. Swami Prakashananda and others 1998 (1) AWC 365 (SC), even orders passed by the Supreme Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition in limine will have the effect of merger of the judgment of the High Court in the Supreme Court and thus the order by which the Special Leave Petition of the State of U. P. was dismissed, was binding on the Five Judges Full Bench decision as well as on us and thus, we are required to set aside the impugned direction and allow this writ petition.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uday Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar : 1994(4)SCALE344 , had clearly ruled that dismissal of Special Leave Petition by a non-speaking order does not imply approval of the impugned Judgment. It laid down in (i) Yogendra Narayan Chaudhary v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 751 and (ii) Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. E.S.I. Corporation : (1996)ILLJ 1156 SC , that in limine dismissal of S.L.P. or without laying down any law does not operate as res judicata. Same view was taken by it in Union of India v. Sube Ram, : (1997)9SCC69 ; Union of India v. Sher Singh : AIR 1997 SC1796 ; C. E. D. v. Pratap Singhji : [1987]167ITR210(SC) and Mir Osman Ali Khan v. C. W. T. : [1986]162ITR888(SC) . Thus, there is no law declared to constitute a bindingprecedent under Article 141 of the Constitution on us.

5. Judicial discipline requires us to follow the express judgment rendered by the Five Judges Full Bench Decision overruling the three Judges Full Bench decision on which Mr. Nigam has placed reliance.

6. Sree Narayana Dharma Sangam Trust (supra), strongly relied upon by Sri Nigam is apparently distinguishable on facts and does not take a contrary view after considering the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above by us.

7. For the reasonsaforementioned, we dismiss this writpetition, but without there being anyorder as to cost.

8. With this dismissal, the authority below may proceed in accordance with law.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1999 Same Parties Madan Singh vs State of U.P. and Others Same Subject Property Same Judge B.K. Roy and;Yatindra Singh, JJ. Acts & Sections Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Sections 47A and 48; Constitution of...

Property