{"id":110623,"date":"1999-12-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-12-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/duncans-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-3-december-1999"},"modified":"2015-10-03T01:26:05","modified_gmt":"2015-10-02T19:56:05","slug":"duncans-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-3-december-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/duncans-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-3-december-1999","title":{"rendered":"Duncans Industries Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Duncans Industries Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 1999<\/div>\n
Author: S Hegde<\/div>\n
Bench: N.S.Hegde, B.N.Kirpal<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDUNCANS INDUSTRIES LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF U.P.  & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t03\/12\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nN.S.Hegde, B.N.Kirpal\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
      SANTOSH HEGDE, J.\n<\/p>\n
      A\t Deed  of  Conveyance dated 9.6.1994 executed  by  a
\ncompany\t named\tICI  India Ltd.\t in favour  of\tChand  Chhap
\nFertilizer   and   Chemicals  Ltd.    when   presented\t for
\nregisteration,\tthe  concerned Registrar referred  the\tsaid
\ndocument  under\t Section  47-A(II) of the Stamp Act  to\t the
\nCollector complaining of the non compliance of Section 27 of
\nthe said Act and praying for proper valuation to be made and
\nto  collect  the stamp duty and penalty payable on the\tsaid
\ndocument.   The Collector after inquiry levied a stamp\tduty
\nof Rs.37,01,26,832.50 and a penalty of Rs.30,53,167.50.\t The
\nsaid order came to be challenged by the aggrieved party in a
\nrevision  under Section 56 of the Stamp Act before the Chief
\nControlling  Revenue Authority in Stamp Revision No.36\/95-96
\nand  the  said Revisional Authority as per his\torder  dated
\n4.4.95\tpartly\tallowed\t the  challenge and so\tfar  as\t the
\nimposition  of penalty was concerned the same was set  aside
\nand  slightly  modified\t the  stamp   duty  levied  by\t the
\nCollector.   Consequent\t to  the  order\t of  the  Revisional
\nAuthority,  the appellant herein became liable to pay  stamp
\nduty   on   the\t  said\tDeed   of   Conveyance\t amount\t  to
\nRs.36,68,08.887.50.   This order of the Revisional Authority
\ncame  to  be  challenged  before the  High  Court  in  Civil
\nMisc.Writ Petition No.9170\/95 which came to be dismissed and
\nas  against  this order of the High Court of  Judicature  at
\nAllahabad  dated  7.7.1997, the appellant has preferred\t the
\nabove  civil  appeal.  Briefly stated, the facts leading  to
\nthe  controversy  in  question are as follows :\t  ICI  India
\nLtd.,  a  company registered under the Companies  Act,\t1956
\nexecuted  an  agreement of sale dated 11.11.1993 wherein  it
\nagreed\tto  transfer on an as is where is basis and as\ta
\ngoing  concern\tits fertilizer business\t of  manufacturing,
\nmarketing,  distribution  and  sale of\turea  fertilizer  in
\nfavour\t of  Chand  Chhap   Fertilizer\tand  Chemicals\tLtd.
\n(hereinafter  referred\tto  as the CCFCL) also\ta  company
\nincorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 which company has
\nsince  been  renamed  as M\/s.  Duncans\tIndustries  Limited,
\nFertilizer Division, Kanpur Nagar (the appellant herein) for
\na  total sale consideration of Rs.70 crores which was termed
\nas  slump price in the agreement.  The said agreement also
\nstated that the vendor would on the transfer date transfer
\nthe  fertilizer business by actual delivery of possession to
\nthe  CCFCL in respect of such of the estates and  properties
\nmentioned  in  the  agreement  as   were  capable  of  being
\ntransferred  by\t actual and\/or constructive delivery and  in
\nrespect\t of  the estates requiring transfer by execution  of
\nnecessary  documents vesting the title thereof in CCFCL, and
\nit  was\t further agreed and declared that the  ownership  in
\nrespect\t of  the  assets  and properties  comprised  in\t the
\nfertilizer   business  to  be\ttransferred  as\t per   the
\nagreement, would be deemed to be vested in CCFCL on and from
\nthe  transfer date which, according to the agreement means
\n1.12.1993  or  such  other date as may be agreed to  by\t and
\nbetween ICI India and CCFCL.  The term fertilizer business
\nwas  defined  to  mean\tand   include  the  following  other
\nproperties :\n<\/p>\n
      (i)  Demised  land being plot nos.  2B and 5 and\tthe
\nsub-divided  portion of plot No.2 demarcated and admeasuring
\nin  the\t aggregate an area of 243.4387 acres  equivalent  to
\n9,85,159.50  sq.  mtrs.\t Being the unshaded portion shown on
\nthe  plan  annexed  hereto together with the  buildings\t and
\nstructures  thereon forming part of the fertilizer  business
\nas on the Transfer Date;\n<\/p>\n
      (ii)  freehold  land and residential building  thereon
\nwith  the  name\t Chandralok,  situate  at  plot\t no.4\/284,
\nParbati Bangla Road, Kanpur comprising 94 residential flats;\n<\/p>\n
      (iii)  freehold land and residential building  thereon
\nwith the name Chandrakala, situate at Navsheel Apartments,
\n56 Cantonment, Kanpur comprising a Guest House on the ground
\nfloor and 3 residential flats on the first floor;\n<\/p>\n
      (iv)  Plant  and machinery relating to the  Fertilizer
\nbusiness  including  the Ammonia Manufacturing\tPlants,\t the
\nCaptive\t power\tplant and all other movable  capital  assets
\nincluding  vehicles,  furniture, air-conditioners,  stand-by
\nsystems,  pipelines, railway siding etc., as on the Transfer
\nDate   and   wheresoever  situate,   all  of  which   relate
\nexclusively  to the Fertilizer Business and are owned and in
\nthe  possession of ICI or are owned by ICI but in the lawful
\npossession of any third party for and on behalf of ICI:\n<\/p>\n
      Pursuant\tto the said agreement, a deed of  conveyance
\ndated  9.6.1994\t was executed by the said ICI in  favour  of
\nCCFCL,\ton the presentation of the said Conveyance Deed\t for
\nregistration.\tThe  Sub- Registrar made a reference to\t the
\nCollector  under  Section  47-A(2) of the  Stamp  Act,\t1899
\n(hereinafter  referred to as the Act) stating that in  the
\ndocument  under\t reference  all the details  required  under
\nSection\t 27  of the Act had not been given by  the  parties,
\nhence  valuation and examination is essential and  requested
\nthe  Collector to determine the value as required under\t the
\nAct  and the Rules and to take action to realise the deficit
\nstamp duty and penalty.\t Consequent upon this reference made
\nby the Sub- Registrar, the Collector after necessary inquiry
\nas  per his order dated 20.2.1995 referred to above,  levied
\nstamp  duty and penalty to which reference has already\tbeen
\nmade.\tBeing aggrieved by the said order of the  Collector,
\nthe  appellant\tpreferred a revision petition to  the  Chief
\nControlling Revenue Authority who, as already stated, by his
\norder  dated 9.6.1994 set aside the penalty and modified the
\nduty  payable  to Rs.36,68,08,887.50 which order came to  be
\nchallenged before the High Court unsuccessfully.  Before the
\nHigh Court the appellant had challenged the authority of the
\nSub-Registrar  to  make a reference to the Collector on\t the
\nground\tthat there was no material to entertain any  reason
\nto  believe that the market value of the property which was
\nthe subject-matter of the conveyance deed had not been truly
\nset  forth in the instrument.  The High Court negatived\t the
\nsaid  contention  after\t considering the  arguments  of\t the
\nappellant  in  detail,\tand before us no argument  has\tbeen
\nadvanced  on  this  score.  Mr.\t M L Verma,  learned  senior
\ncounsel\t appearing  for the appellant, urged that  the\tHigh
\nCourt  committed  an error in coming to the conclusion\tthat
\nthe plant and machinery which were transferred by the vendor
\nto  the appellant, were immovable properties, attracting the
\nprovisions  of\tthe  Stamp  Act and at any  rate  under\t the
\nconveyance  deed dated 9.6.1994, the vendor had not conveyed
\nany  title  to\tthe appellant in regard to these  plant\t and
\nmachinery.   He also contended that the High Court erred  in
\nrelying\t upon paragraphs 10 and 11 of the conveyance deed to
\ncome to the conclusion that the plant and machinery were the
\nsubject-  matter  of the said deed.  He contended  that\t the
\nsaid  paragraphs  merely  made\ta reference  to\t an  earlier
\ninstrument and mere reference to some earlier transaction in
\na document does not amount to incorporation in that document
\nof  the terms and conditions relating thereto.\tIt was\talso
\ncontended  that\t the  High  Court failed to  look  into\t the
\nintention  of  the  parties  who   by  an  agreement   dated
\n11.11.1993  had treated the plant and machinery as  movables
\nand  have  delivered  possession  of   the  said  plant\t and
\nmachinery  as movables on 11.12.1993.  Hence, the said plant
\nand machinery is neither immovable property nor the property
\nwhich  has  been  transferred  by  virtue  of  the  deed  of
\nconveyance dated 9.6.1994.  Therefore, the value of the said
\nplant  and  machinery  could  not   have  been\ttaken\tinto
\nconsideration for the purpose of arriving at the correct and
\ntrue  value  of\t the  property conveyed under  the  deed  of
\nconveyance.   He also contended that the valuation in regard
\nto  the\t plant and machinery made by the authorities and  as
\naccepted by the High Court is incorrect and contrary to law.
\nMr.   Gopal Subramaniam, learned senior counsel appearing on
\nbehalf\tof the State, in reply, contended that the  document
\ndated\t11.11.1993  (agreement\tof   sale  and\ttransfer  of
\nfertilizer  business)  by  ICI\tin   favour  of\t the   CCFCL
\ncontemplated  an  agreement  to\t transfer  the\tbusiness  of
\nmanufacturing,\tmarketing,  distribution  and sale  of\turea
\nfertilizer  that  is  fertilizer   business  itself  with  a
\nstipulation  that  the first stream, second stream  and\t the
\nthird  stream  urea  manufacturing  plants as  well  as\t the
\nAmmonia\t manufacturing plants would also be transferred as a
\npart  of the transfer of fertilizer business of the ICI as a
\ngoing  concern.\t  He  also contended that a reading  of\t the
\ndocument at Para 1(e)(i) which defines fertilizer business
\nclearly\t shows\tthat  the  intention of the  vendor  was  to
\ntransfer  all  properties  that\t  comprised  the  fertiliser
\nbusiness.  He also drew our attention to the observations of
\nthe  High  Court which had in specific terms noted that\t the
\nlearned\t counsel  representing the appellant before it,\t had
\nnot   seriously\t challenged  the   valuation  made  by\t the
\nauthorities,  hence he contended that the challenge made  to
\nthe  valuation\tby  the appellant before us  should  not  be
\ncoutenanced.   We have heard learned counsel for the parties
\nand  the  question  that arises for our consideration  is  :
\nwhether by the conveyance deed dated 9.6.1994, the plant and
\nmachinery  were\t also transferred;  and if so,\twhether\t the
\nHigh  Court was right in accepting the valuation as made  by
\nthe  authorities  for  the purpose of stamp duty  payable  ?
\nConsidering  the  question whether the plant & machinery  in
\nthe  instant case can be construed as immovable property  or
\nnot,  the  High\t Court\tcame  to  the  conclusion  that\t the
\nmachineries   which  formed  the   fertilizer  plant,\twere
\npermanently  embedded  in  the earth with  an  intention  of
\nrunning\t the  fertilizer factory and while  embedding  these
\nmachineries the intention of the party was not to remove the
\nsame  for  the purpose of any sale of the same either  as  a
\npart  of a machinery or scrap and in the very nature of\t the
\nuser  of  these\t machineries, it was  necessary\t that  these
\nmachineries  be permanently fixed to the ground.  Therefore,
\nit  came  to  the  conclusion that  these  machineries\twere
\nimmovable  property  which were permanently attached to\t the
\nland  in  question.   While coming to  this  conclusion\t the
\nlearned Judge relied upon the observations found in the case
\nof  Reynolds  v.   Ashby & Son (1904 AC\t 466)  and  Official
\nLiquidator v.  Sri Krishna Deo & Ors.  (AIR 1959 All.  247).
\nWe  are inclined to agree with the above finding of the High
\nCourt  that the plant and machinery in the instant case\t are
\nimmovable  properties.\t The  question whether\ta  machinery
\nwhich  is  embedded in the earth is movable property  or  an
\nimmovable property, depends upon the facts and circumstances
\nof  each case.\tPrimarily, the court will have to take\tinto
\nconsideration  the intention of the parties when it  decided
\nto  embed the machinery whether such embedment was  intended
\nto  be\ttemporary  or permanent.  A careful perusal  of\t the
\nagreement  of  sale and the conveyance deed along  with\t the
\nattendant  circumstances  and taking into consideration\t the
\nnature\tof  machineries\t involved  clearly  shows  that\t the
\nmachineries  which  have  been\tembedded  in  the  earth  to
\nconstitute  a  fertiliser  plant in the\t instant  case,\t are
\ndefinitely  embedded permanently with a view to utilise\t the
\nsame as a fertiliser plant.  The description of the machines
\nas  seen in the Schedule attached to the deed of  conveyance
\nalso  shows  without  any  doubt   that\t they  were  set  up
\npermanently in the land in question with a view to operate a
\nfertilizer  plant and the same was not embedded to dismantle
\nand  remove the same for the purpose of sale as machinery at
\nany  point  of time.  The facts as could be found also\tshow
\nthat  the purpose for which these machines were embedded was
\nto  use\t the  plant  as a factory  for\tthe  manufacture  of
\nfertiliser  at various stages of its production.  Hence, the
\ncontention that these machines should be treated as movables
\ncannot\tbe accepted.  Nor can it be said that the plant\t and
\nmachinery  could  have\tbeen   transferred  by\tdelivery  of
\npossession  on\tany date prior to the date of conveyance  of
\nthe  title  to\tthe  land.  Mr.\t Verma, in  support  of\t his
\ncontention   that  the\tmachineries  in\t question  are\t not
\nimmovable  properties, relied on a judgment of this Court in
\nSirpur\tPaper  Mills Ltd.  v.  Collector of Central  Excise,
\nHyderabad<\/a>  (1998  1 SCC 400).  In the said case, this  Court
\nwhile\tconsidering  the  leviability  of  excise  duty\t  on
\npaper-making machines, based on the facts of that case, came
\nto the conclusion that the machineries involved in that case
\ndid  not  constitute immovable property.  As  stated  above,
\nwhether\t a machinery embedded in the earth can be treated as
\nmovable\t or  immovable property depends upon the  facts\t and
\ncircumstances  of each case.  The Court considering the said
\nquestion  will have to take into consideration the intention
\nof  the\t parties which embedded the machinery and  also\t the
\nintention  of  the  parties   who  intend  alienating  those
\nmachinery.   In the case cited by Mr.  Verma, this Court  in
\npara 4 of the judgment had observed thus :  In view of this
\nfinding\t of  fact,  it\tis not possible\t to  hold  that\t the
\nmachinery  assembled  and  erected by the appellant  at\t its
\nfactory site was immovable property as something attached to
\nearth  like a building or a tree.  The Tribunal has  pointed
\nout  that  it  was  for the operational\t efficiency  of\t the
\nmachine\t that  it was attached to earth.  If  the  appellant
\nwanted\tto  sell  the paper-making machine it  could  always
\nremove\tit  from  its  base and sell  it.”  From  the  above
\nobservations,  it  is clear that this Court has decided\t the
\nissue  in  that\t case based on the facts  and  circumstances
\npertaining  to\tthat case hence the same will not  help\t the
\nappellant  in  supporting its contention in this case  where
\nafter\tperusing   the\tdocumetns    and   other   attending
\ncircumstances  available  in this case, we have come to\t the
\nconclusion  that the plant and machinery in this case cannot
\nbut  be described as an immovable property.  Hence, we agree
\nwith  the  High Court on this point.  The next question\t for
\nconsideration  is whether the vendor did transfer the  title
\nof  the\t plant\tand  machinery in the instant  case  by\t the
\nconveyance   deed  dated  9.6.1994.    Here  again,  it\t  is
\nimperative  to\tascertain the intention of the parties\tfrom
\nthe  material  available on record.  While ascertaining\t the
\nintention of the parties, we cannot preclude the contents of
\nthe  agreement\tpursuant  to which the\tconveyance  deed  in
\nquestion  has come into existence.  We have noticed that  as
\nper  the agreement it is clear what was agreed to be sold is
\nthe  entire  business of fertilizer on an as is\t where\tis
\nbasis  including  the  land,  building\tthereon,  plant\t and
\nmachinery  relating to fertilizer business  description\t of
\nwhich  is  found in the definition of the  term\t fertilizer
\nbusiness  in the agreement itself which has been  extracted
\nby us hereinabove.  It is not the case of the appellant when
\nit  contends that the possession of plant and machinery\t was
\nhanded\tover separately to the appellant by the vendor\tthat
\nthese\tmachineries  were  dismantled\tand  given  to\t the
\nappellant,  nor is it possible to visualise from the  nature
\nof  the plant that is involved in the instant case that such
\na  possession de hors the land could be given by the  vendor
\nto  the\t appellant.   It is obviously to reduce\t the  market
\nvalue  of the property the document in question is attempted
\nto  be drafted as a Conveyance Deed regarding the land only.
\nThe  appellant\thad embarked upon a methodology by which  it
\npurported  to  transfer\t the  possession of  the  plant\t and
\nmachinery separately and is contending now that this handing
\nover  possession of the machinery is de hors the  conveyance
\ndeed.\tWe are not convinced with this argument.  Apart from
\nthe  recitals in the agreement of sale, it is clear from the
\nrecitals in the conveyance deed itself that what is conveyed
\nunder  the deed dated 9.6.1994 is not only the land but\t the
\nentire fertilizer business including plant and machinery.  A
\nperusal of Clauses 10, 11 and 13 of the said deed shows that
\nit  is the fertilizer factory which the vendor had agreed to
\ntransfer  along with its business as a going concern and  to
\ncomplete  the same the conveyance deed in question was being
\nexecuted.   There  is  implicit\t reference to  the  sale  of
\nfertilizer factory as a going concern in the conveyance deed
\nitself.\t  That\tapart, the inclusion of Schedule III to\t the
\nconveyance  deed  wherein  a Plan  delineating\tthe  various
\nmachineries comprising of the fertilizer factory is appended
\nshows  that it is the land with standing fertilizer  factory
\nwhich is being conveyed under the deed, though an attempt to
\ncamouflage  this  part of the property sold is made  in\t the
\nrecitals,  in  our opinion, the parties concerned  have\t not
\nbeen  able  to successfully do so.  While  considering\tthis
\nquestion  of  transfer of plant and machinery being part  of
\nthe  conveyance deed or not, reliance can also be placed  on
\nthe   application   filed  by\tthe  appellant\tbefore\t the
\nappropriate  authority of the Income-Tax Department  wherein
\nwhile  disclosing the market value of the immovable property
\nsought to be transferred the appellant himself has mentioned
\nthe  value  of the property so transferred as  Rs.70  crores
\nwhich  is  the figure found in the agreement of\t sale  which
\nagreement  includes  the sale of plant and  machinery  along
\nwith  the  land.   A certificate issued by  the\t appropriate
\nauthority  under  Section  269 UL(3) of the Income  Tax\t Act
\nevidences  this\t fact.\tIn the said application made by\t the
\nappellant  for obtaining the said certificate, the appellant
\nhas  in\t specific terms at serial No.  (iv) of the  Schedule
\nincluded  plant\t and  machinery, railway sliding  and  other
\nimmovable  properties  as  part of the\tfertilizer  business
\nundertaking.   It  is  also  found  on\trecord\tthat  by   a
\nsupplementary  affidavit  dated\t 8.9.1993 filed\t before\t the
\nIncome\tTax  department\t while filing Form  37-I  prescribed
\nunder  the  Income-tax Rules the petitioner has again  shown
\nall  these plant and machinery along with the Plan which  is
\nnow  attached to the conveyance deed as part of the property
\nthat  is  being\t conveyed.  Merely because in  some  of\t the
\nrelevant paragraphs of the Conveyance Deed the appellant has
\ntried  to  highlight the fact that what is being sold  under
\nthe conveyance deed is only the land and a reference is made
\nin regard to the handing over of possession of the machinery
\non  an\tearlier date does not ipso facto establish that\t the
\nvendor\tdid not convey the title of the plant and  machinery
\nunder  the conveyance deed dated 9.6.1994.  Learned  counsel
\nfor  the  appellant  has  placed  for  our  consideration  a
\njudgment  of  this Court in the case of Himalaya  House\t Co.
\nLtd.,  Bombay  v.  The Chief Controlling  Revenue  Authority<\/a>
\n(1972  1  SCC  726) to contend that a mere reference  to  an
\nearlier\t agreement  does not amount to incorporation of\t the
\nterms  and  conditions\tof  an earlier\ttransaction  or\t the
\nintention  of the parties.  We have carefully considered the
\nsaid judgment and, in our opinion, that judgment does not in
\nany  manner lay down the law in absolute terms that a  court
\ncannot\tlook  into  prior agreements while  considering\t the
\nintention  of  the parties for finding out what actually  is
\nthe  property  that  is\t conveyed   under  the\tdeed   under
\nconsideration.\tIt is again based on facts of that case that
\nthis Court came to the conclusion therein that the so called
\nterms  and  conditions\twhich  were   found  in\t an  earlier
\nagreement  were\t not  intended\tto be  incorporated  in\t the
\nsubsequent  document.\tThis  is clear\tfrom  the  following
\nobservations  of this Court appearing in Para 10 of the said
\njudgment  :\tFrom the language used in  the\tAssignment
\nDeed,  it is not possible to come to the conclusion that the
\nterms  and  conditions of the earlier transaction have\tbeen
\nmade  a\t part of that Deed.  Further barring one  particular
\nagreement,  other  agreements  were not\t before\t the  Court.
\nTherefore,  it\tis not possible to know what the  terms\t and
\nconditions  of those agreements were.  Before the terms\t and
\nconditions  of\tan  agreement  can  be\tsaid  to  have\tbeen
\nincorporated  into  another document, the same must  clearly
\nshow  that the parties thereto intended to incorporate them.
\nNo such intention is available in this case.\n<\/p>\n
      Hence  we\t are of the opinion that this judgment\talso
\ndoes  not  help the appellant in his attempt to convince  us
\nthat  we should not take into consideration the recitals  in
\nthe   agreement\t dated\t11.11.93   while   considering\t the
\nconveyance  deed of 9.6.1994.  For the reasons stated above,
\nwe  are of the considered opinion that the vendor as per the
\nconveyance deed dated 9.6.1994 has conveyed the title it had
\nnot  only in regard to the land in question but also to\t the
\nentire\tfertilizer  business in as is where  is\t condition
\nincluding the plant and machinery standing on the said land.
\nTherefore,  the authorities below were totally justified  in
\ntaking\tinto  consideration  the value of  these  plant\t and
\nmachineries along with the value of the land for the purpose
\nof  the Act.  The next point to be considered is whether the
\nHigh  Court was justified in accepting the valuation made by
\nthe  authorities in regard to the plant and machinery.\tHere
\nwe  must  note that in the judgment of the High\t Court,\t the
\nlearned Judge has noted as follows :   In fact the finding
\non  valuation  of  plant  and machinery\t was  not  seriously
\nchallenged  by\tShri  Shanti Bhushan during  the  course  of
\nargument  and, in my opinion, rightly.\tIt is based on this
\napproach  of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
\nthat  the  High\t Court\tdid  not go  into  the\tquestion  of
\nvaluation.   However,  since  the learned  counsel  for\t the
\nappellant did question the correctness of the valuation made
\nby  the\t authorities  below,  we have  heard  the  arguments
\naddressed  in this regard.  We have also heard the arguments
\non  behalf  of\tthe State on this score.   The\tquestion  of
\nvaluation  is basically a question of fact and this Court is
\nnormally  reluctant to interfere with the finding on such  a
\nquestion  of  fact  if it is based on relevant\tmaterial  on
\nrecord.\t  The  main objection of the appellant in regard  to
\nthe  valuation\tarrived\t at by the authorities is  that\t the
\nCollector   originally\tconstituted  an\t Enquiry   Committee
\nconsisting    of    the\t    Assistant\tInspector    General
\n(Registration), General Manager, District Industries Centre,
\nSub-Registrar  and  the\t Tehsildar.  After  the\t report\t was
\nsubmitted  by the Sub-Committee for the reasons of its\town,
\nthe  Collector\treconstituted the said Enquiry Committee  by
\nsubstituting   Additional  City\t Magistrate   in  place\t  of
\nSub-Registrar.\t This substitution of the Enquiry Committee,
\naccording to the appellant, is without authority of law.  We
\nare  unable  to accept this contention.\t Constitution of  an
\nEnquiry\t Committee  by the Collector is for the\t purpose  of
\nfinding\t out the true market value of the property  conveyed
\nunder  the  Deed.  In this process, the Collector has  every
\nauthority  in law to take assistance from such source as  is
\navailable,   even   if\tit   amounts  to   constituting\t  or
\nreconstituting\tmore  than one Committee.  That\t apart,\t the
\nappellant  has not been able to establish any prejudice that
\nis  caused  to\tit by reconstitution of\t the  Expert\/Enquiry
\nCommittee.   We have perused that part of the report of\t the
\nCollector  in which he has discussed in extenso the  various
\nmaterials  that were available before the Committee and also
\nthe  report  of\t the valuers appointed for  the\t purpose  of
\nfinding\t out  the value of the plant and  machinery.   These
\nvaluers\t are  technical persons who have while\tvaluing\t the
\nplant  and machinery taken into consideration all aspects of
\nvaluation  including  the life of the plant  and  machinery.
\nThe valuations made both by the Enquiry Committee as well as
\nthe  valuers  are mostly based on the documents produced  by
\nthe  appellant itself.\tHence, we cannot accept the argument
\nthat  the valuation accepted by the Collector and  confirmed
\nby  the\t revisional  authority is either not  based  on\t any
\nmaterial  or a finding arrived at arbitrarily.\tOnce we\t are
\nconvinced that the method adopted by the authorities for the
\npurpose\t of  valuation is based on relevant  materials\tthen
\nthis  Court will not interfere with such a finding of  fact.
\nThat  apart,  as  observed above, even the counsel  for\t the
\nappellant  before the High Court did not seriously challenge
\nthe  valuation and as emphasised by the High Court,  rightly
\nso.   Therefore,  we  do  not find any\tforce  in  the\tlast
\ncontention  of\tthe appellant also.  For the reasons  stated
\nabove,\tthis  appeal  fails and the same is  dismissed\twith
\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Duncans Industries Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 1999 Author: S Hegde Bench: N.S.Hegde, B.N.Kirpal PETITIONER: DUNCANS INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/12\/1999 BENCH: N.S.Hegde, B.N.Kirpal JUDGMENT: SANTOSH HEGDE, J. A Deed of Conveyance dated 9.6.1994 executed by a company […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-110623","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDuncans Industries Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/duncans-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-3-december-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Duncans Industries Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/duncans-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-3-december-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-02T19:56:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/duncans-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-3-december-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/duncans-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-3-december-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Duncans Industries Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-02T19:56:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/duncans-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-3-december-1999\"},\"wordCount\":4040,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/duncans-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-3-december-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/duncans-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-3-december-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/duncans-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-3-december-1999\",\"name\":\"Duncans Industries Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-02T19:56:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/duncans-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-3-december-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/duncans-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-3-december-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/duncans-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-3-december-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Duncans Industries Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 1999\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Duncans Industries Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/duncans-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-3-december-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Duncans Industries Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/duncans-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-3-december-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-02T19:56:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/duncans-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-3-december-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/duncans-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-3-december-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Duncans Industries Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 1999","datePublished":"1999-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-02T19:56:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/duncans-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-3-december-1999"},"wordCount":4040,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/duncans-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-3-december-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/duncans-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-3-december-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/duncans-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-3-december-1999","name":"Duncans Industries Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-02T19:56:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/duncans-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-3-december-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/duncans-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-3-december-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/duncans-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-3-december-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Duncans Industries Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 1999"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110623","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=110623"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110623\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110623"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110623"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110623"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}