!N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No: L) -3; ) / of 1999 PETITIONERS : 1. SIMPLEXENGINEERING&FOUNDRYWORKS LIMITED, a PublicLimited Companydulyregistered under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its unit at Industrial Estate, Bhilai, Distt. Durg(M.P) 2. Shri. H.B.SHAH son of Late Shri. B.M.SHAH, agedabout66years, IndianCitizen.shareholderandDirectorofSimplex Engineering & FoundryWorks Limited, resident of Simplex Colony, Malviya Nagar, District Durg, M.P. Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. TheStateofMadhyaPradesh Through the Collector, Durg, (M.P.) 2. The Inspector General of Registration and Superintendent of stamp, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior((M.P) 3. The District Registrar and Collector of Stamps, Durg (M.P) 4, Central Bank of India, Civic Center Brahch, Bhilai, District Durg, (M.P.) -.'^ ^. ji^ .^^^-i 5. State Bank of India, a body Corporate having common seal and perpetual succession, having Industrial and Finance Branch, S-1, Bhilai, District Durg (M.P). PETITIQNJJNDERARTLCLE 226/227 OFTHECQNSTITUTIONOFiNDiA The humble petion ofthe Petitioners above-named MOST RESPECTFULLY Contd.....2 • :!.-HC-22 sn^rqir 'an^r 3it| tf(6(l 3^cf •qTi(IrPT, ®TII*i<l<o, _^z:^/./.^ 311^1 ^WIigTHfScT ^ f^-Vf {^-. 11/C Shri Y.K. Mun; petitioners. Shri Prashant 'his case has been Madhya Pradssh. Learned counsel appe^ matter is squarely covered '^ Division Bench of the High bearing Wri't Petition No.4854| ^f 118 ifsil M/s. Vikas Concrej Ths points raised in ti(is pstition 'aised in aforesaid writ petit|ons and Division Bench of the Hioh Cot vy'hite deciding the aforesaiti .obsen/ed as under: «hi'si??i'41-< Hi>idT^teI<ft<Ri'Ki< ^i3ri^CT3TI^T <dv., with Shri B.P. ;ate Generi ceived on transfer from ths Hiah Court of )r the State very falriy stated that thls er dated 07/02/2003 passed by the Of CS3SS Cburt of iii i99 and the connected matters. This » i simi!ar to that of the point: same have bsen decided b; It is submitted writ petitions, the Division Bench has (tfl^S^) XI-HC-22 sn^Tqir i^riaiai^T »T?wgf?cr S:l ^Sf "idqiciq', wrfiu'i®,isidiyu< !TPT?n'apTra? t-.GJ..-^:...L/.?.^/f. ^rafeTftrwRfffffei^; ^iSf^'q'gil^T (a)°- nameiy, stamp /h11, Tnff. C;: le ra ! En (c) There is no u !t !S on the grounc) ference between the tvs'o'concepts, 1 duty and rate of duty; _.. iislature has the competence to ij:es of stamp duty as per Entry 63 44 of 'List-iil of the Seventh istitution; iscrimination because a document tiovabie hder Section 75 of the 1993 Act tituated within the block whereas a \/ is not iiabie to excess duty solely it is situated within the' Munlcipa! proviso to Se< force i.e. 25! fe'! The retroactivi ttie persons ^ wouid be liabil psrsons who i'G^. lOSIIIC the 1993 Act is i ;tion 75 is to be te when S< ra vires and the retrosi v npt paid the stamp duty under the proviso but 'ihe tiave paid under the main provision arned counsei app^aring for the petitioner does not dispute this (^S^) MSSl rf "i-H!"-' S^.qTSfRTtT, ®Tflt)' , •^.ty.:.?.:..^!f./.?.. •STi^TtiiT ss;TN?sn^T MT^HretT 3)1^1 g'wiwdfer ~ 5 submissl >r!y the 1] •ivision petltion stands finally disposei in vievrf OT parties and, oarticu the decision of the 1 Learned counsel for t| osit. The seeurity amount, se.no^wder^^to^cgsts^ Sd/- Acting Chief Justice tillKI'fl'l 111<'ll:ffte<^t<R)'L<-K ^srf^R'ant^' fons made by the counss!'appearing for tS ict that this matter is-squareiy covered 1 jinch of HiQh Court of Madhya Pradesh, tt 1 ofwith the obsepifations quoted above. prays ror rerund OT secui iftinrl?sri Th^r^ '<;hai! >>?E ^? -^i iULiE Sd/- SuniIKumarSinha ^ Judge ihh.; (rft^y») \y. .0 ^•i ti i