(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 5042 OF 1998 Shikshak Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, At Patoda, Taluka : Patoda, District : Beed, through its Chairman, Shri Kothekar S.D. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. 2. The Collector, District : Beed. 3. The Sub-Registrar, Cooperative Societies, At Patoda, Taluka : Patoda, District : Beed. 4. The Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed. 5. The Director of Stamps, Pune, and the Director General of Registration, Maharashtra State, At Pune. .. Respondents. (2) ....................... Mr. M.M. Patil Beedkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1 to 5. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 5TH AUGUST 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) : 1. The petitioner is a Cooperative Credit Society. It gives loan to its members on execution of document known as "Karjarokha". The Sub-Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Patoda, vide his order dated 25th June 1998, verified the documents of the petitioner / Society and found that about 330 documents were executed wherein the stamp duty was not adequately paid. According to the Sub-Registrar, Patoda, the petitioner is required to pay stamp duty at the rate of 2 %, as per Article 40 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. The said order is assailed by the petitioner. 2. Mr. M.M. Patil Beedkar, learned Counsel appearing (3) for the petitioner, contends that the said documents, in question, are promissory notes and they do not come within the ambit and purview of the provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act, and the same are governed by the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act. According to him, the impugned order is per se and ex-facie illegal. 3. Per contra, Mr. K.G. Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, contends that the said document is a composite document involving a loan agreement, as well as, a guarantee agreement. The said document would be charged duty as per Article 54 of the Bombay Stamp Act, and as per the said Article, the stamp duty of 2 %, as per Article 40, is required to be paid by the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that the Sub-Registrar, Patoda, has rightly passed the impugned order. 4. We have perused the said document. A bare perusal of the said document shows that it is not a promissory note. The terms and conditions of the loan are enumerated in the said document. So also, the said document contains a separate guarantee agreement. The same is a composite document. Section 6 of the Bombay Stamp Act lays down that if the instrument comes within two or more of the descriptions in Schedule I, where the duties chargeable thereunder are different, (4) it would be chargeable with the highest of such duties. 5. Even if the argument of Mr. M.M. Patil Beedkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, is accepted, that the said document does not come within the purview of Article 6 of the Bombay Stamp Act, still the said document contains an agreement of guarantee / surety, the same would be chargeable as laid down by Article 54 of the Bombay Stamp Act. 6. The valuation of the document is not disputed. The amount of loan advanced, pursuant to the said said document, is not disputed by the petitioner. In the light of the same, no question of adjudication would also arise. 7. In the light of the above, we do not find any error in the order impugned. 8. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. Needless to state, that the interim relief stands vacated. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp5042