Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr. - Court Judgment

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

M.D. Shah, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 20
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 21
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 22
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 23
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '747022',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
			'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.D. Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '747022',
		(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu Ltd and anr Vs State of Gujarat and anr - Citation 747022 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '747022',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/135898/bombay-stamp-act-1958-complete-act">Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a> - Sections 39 and 53; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Special Civil Application No. 1172 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities: The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' A.S. Vakil and; S.B. Vakil, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' L.R. Poojari, A.G.P.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-06-25',
		'deposition' => 'Application dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.D. Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.</p><p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.</p><p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.</p><p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.</p><p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:</p><p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.</p><p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .</p><p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .</p><p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .</p><p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .</p><p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.</p><p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .</p><p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .</p><p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.</p><p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .</p><p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).</p><p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.</p><p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.</p><p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.</p><p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.</p><p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.</p><p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.</p><p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.</p><p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2008)3GLR2213',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Gujarat and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '747022',
	(int) 1 => 'amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/747022/amarsinhji-stationery-indu-ltd-vs-state-gujarat'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.D. Shah, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the <a>Bombay Stamp Act, 1958</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(1) State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(2) Collector of Monghyr and Ors. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and Ors. : [1963]1SCR98 .',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(3) L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(4) Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. : 1987(32)ELT8(SC) .',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(5) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai : AIR1999SC22 .',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(6) Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. Dist. Dev. Officer (Rev.) Broach 1981 (2) GLR 678.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(7) Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M. Anwar : (2000)3GLR2403 .',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(8) Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat : (2001)2GLR1538 .',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(9) Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha and Ors. 2002 (3) GLR 2626.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>(10) D.I.D. Franchisees' Association (Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L. Corporation) and Ors. : AIR2005Guj141 .',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(11) Division Bench judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Dave) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2006 with Civil Application No. 278 of 2006 (Amarsinhji Stationery Ind. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.).',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(12) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh 2004 (0) GLHEL SC 36880 : 2004 (13) SCC 665.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned A.G.P. Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure, otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straightaway without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects ought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. reported in : (2007)IILLJ95SC of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 1997 (4) GCD 63, Para 2 of the judgment.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>9. In the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 24
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109