1
IN THE 11:93 COURT op KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 1013+ DAY 01:' 5: _
BEFVDRE .
THE HOITBLE. MR'. JUSTICE
WRIT PETITION No.26932?'F retjoa
I .
SMTRSUDHARANI
W/0 SR1 G.L.CHANDRASHEKA.F2 j V
AGEDABOUT-H'&'EAR:3 I
PERMANENT 0?
No.12, Inamm A
GORAGUNTEPALYTA, A 'a L
5m :mAv%jA
H0105,
NEAR V£NAYi£,KA TE,Ivfl'?I;E...L7
«rm BLQCK, NAHDINI LEYOUT,
1'3'm'1°333-
% f T , %Ljk%{Bif 31:21 E .v1JAY SI-IETTY, ADV.)
sra1*§'<:_.i{1ézs}mAmm
..-mu \.uur\I ur l'\.HlU'{HU-KIU-\ rm.-:H t.:(.)!J,.:I('l OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C
u 1 'W/O=LA'I'E RANGASWAMY
A AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
ma No.12, aw MAIN ROAD
YESHWAN'I'HPURA HOBLI
GORAGUIWEPALYA
-
2. SR} QPDEVENDRA
3/ O LATE GRUPADAYAYA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
l2
payable as per Article 30(c) as if it is the ‘fine’ or
‘premium’ or ‘money advance.’
13. Sri Hfianumantharayappa,
Government Pleader submits that we h_aye:”_’to
recitals of the documents than
Going by the recitals. he sui_3mitls’.that
question is chargeable 3ti[a}[i] and
Article 30 [1}[c] of to_’t.he~rI§arnataka Stamp
Act.1957. ‘V
thatwfalls for my consideration
is: of lease, dated 29.4.2001
attracts the rental amounts and on the
answer this question partly in the
: partly in the negative.
Full Bench of this Court in the case of
Jfhellflliief Controlling Authority (supra) has held that
it “‘V’lltl”n;:aIi1OuI1t reserved as refundable security deposit is
” -“:1″iOt the money advanced in addition to the rent reserved
and it does not attract th uty under Article 30(c} of
13
the Schedule to the Act. Similarly, in the case of
V.Srinivascm (supra) also it was held that the amount
advanced is in the nature of premium, as there was no
provision for the return of the advance.
amount advanced could only be the consideration for»
the grant of lease.
16. The decision relied u pori by thae”i’es:pondent’s_:
side in the case of Leelatriéiii-ft S_atrifle.il_(.su15ra) is no
more governing the field _inl.’viev.i. o’f_’jth;’eidecision rendered
by the Full.» the Chief
Contirtolliiagiv2’iu’t.fiorii:§i’s..case (supra). The decision in
the case.__of _I§§Rtir:na.c’iidndra Rao [supra] is in the
context’ of V.C’ouif_t_____fee. Different words like ‘Salami’,
J .fPu.gre,e”~a11.d”v’Nazrana’, etc. are used in different parts of
“theVi’couri’t;f_V’.1″Whatever be the nomenclature, the tests
are whether the amount advanced is refundable or
A 5l_” Aladjustable towards the arrears of rent. If the amount so
advanced is refundable, then ii: does not attract the
payment’ of stamp duty. The payment of amount
advanced would attract the stamp duty, if it goes
R9;-g
14
irrevocably into the pocket of the landlord. if this
proposition requires the authority, it is to be found in
the case of Chief Controlling Revenue Autherity,
Delhi (supra).
17. In the result, I allow this petition.Virfparitii by
setting aside that part of
30.7.2009 [Annexure–M) which ‘f3er’taing0V.to*VV:t:he §;t¢irn;§*_
duty payabie on the securitgfdeposit Eaitiouht {shown as
advance amount ir1«._..V:iih’e’A._ agreemehtt of lease, dated
29.4.2001); that part”offthe”»orde_rV«:”i}§riiich pertains to
starrip duty. re1a.tai..aIriount, is upheld.
— .. 18. ” No ‘order’-assto costs.
Sd/–
EUDGE
it it AGV/VGR