Bombay High Court
SAI AADHAR ASSOCIATESversusAMIT ANANT HANANMGHAR AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The impoundment of the Development Agreement under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Stamps Act, 1958 was proper and the petition is dismissed.
Summary
Sai Aadhar Associates filed a writ petition challenging a Civil Judge's order that impounded a Development Agreement dated 7 December 2007 under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Stamps Act, 1958, on the ground that stamp duty was deficient. The Civil Judge had found a deficit in stamp duty and ordered the document sent to the Collector of Stamps for adjudication. The High Court examined the provisions of Sections 33 and 34 of the Stamps Act, noting that an insufficiently stamped document must be impounded and cannot be admitted as evidence unless the deficit duty and any penalty are paid. The Court held that the impoundment was proper and there was no basis to entertain the petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- What is the correct legal effect of a finding of deficit stamp duty on a document under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Stamps Act, 1958?
- Whether the High Court can set aside the Civil Judge's order impounding the Development Agreement?
Subjects
- stamp duty
- impoundment
- evidence
- Maharashtra Stamps Act
- civil procedure
- writ petition
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
MEERA
MEERA MAHESH
MAHESH JADHAV 33-WP-9063-26.DOC
JADHAV Date:
2026.08.20
16:02:57
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9063 OF 2026
Sai Aadhar Associates ...Petitioner
Versus
Amit Anant Hananmghar And Ors. ...Respondents
----------
Mr. P. D. Gole i/b Mr.P. M. Patil for Petitioner.
-----------
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 18th AUGUST 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 27 th February
2026 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Pune, whereby the
Development Agreement dated 7th December 2007 has been impounded
by the Learned Civil Judge invoking power under Section 33 of the
Maharashtra Stamps Act 1958.
3. The Learned Civil Judge has recorded categorical finding in
Paragraph 16 of the impugned order that the stamp duty paid on the
said Development Agreement was deficit and, therefore, the said
document was required to be impounded and sent to the Collector of
Stamps for adjudication of the deficit stamp duty and penalty thereon.
Meera Jadhav 1/2
33-WP-9063-26.DOC
4. As under Section 34 of the Stamps Act, 1958, no document which
is not sufficiently stamped can be admitted in evidence for any purpose
by any Court or authority, and under Section 33, the person before
whom such insufficiently stamped document is produced or comes, is
enjoined to impound the same, no fault can be found with the
impugned order. In view of the proviso (a) to Section 34 of the Stamps
Act 1958, if the deficit stamp duty and penalty, if any, is paid, such
document can be admitted in evidence.
5. Therefore, there is no propriety in entertaining this Petition.
6. The Petition, accordingly, stands dismissed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
Meera Jadhav 2/2
Checking your session…