Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1421 (ALL)

Beston Skyvision Private Ltd. v. Board Of Revenue

2020-12-02

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shashi Kant Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner-M/S Beston Skyvision Private Ltd. through Shri Anurag Srivastava claiming to be power of attorney holder of Shri Prabhadass Nathani, is before this Court assailing the order impugned dated 26.4.2008 passed by the Additional Collector (F/R), Gautambudh Nagar/third respondent in Case No. 261 of 2007-08 and 331 of 2007-08, under Section 47A/33 Stamp Act, 1899, wherein deficiency of stamp duty along with fine, total Rs. 40,11,580/-has been levelled against the petitioner as well as the revisional order dated 12.3.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue/C.C.R.A. Meerut in Case No. 01471/2019, under Section 56 (1) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 by which the revision was dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay. 3. The record in question reflects that the Sub-Registrar, Gautam Budh Nagar had submitted report dated 1.9.2007 regarding certain deficiency of stamp and consequently proceeding has been drawn against the petitioner bearing No.331 of 2007-08, under Section 47A and 33 of Indian Stamp Act(State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. M/S Beston Skyvision Private Ltd. Through Prabhadas Naithani). In the said proceeding notice was served upon the petitioner and admittedly he contested the proceeding. Finally the order impugned has been passed by the third respondent on 26.4.2008, wherein deficiency of stamp duty along with fine, total Rs.40,11,580/-has been levelled against the petitioner. The revision was preferred after inordinate delay of more than 8 years. The same was dismissed by the revisional authority vide order dated 12.3.2020 on the ground of delay and laches. The revisional authority has clearly proceeded to observe that no satisfactory explanation has been averred regarding day-to-day laches and on account of inordinate delay the revision was rejected. 4. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Director of the company had authorised one of his employee to assail the validity of the said order. Unfortunately in response thereof the employee neither engaged any counsel nor has filed any appeal/ revision. Therefore, disciplinary action has been taken against him and his services had been dispensed with. He submits that the said situation was beyond the control of the petitioner company and the laches are bonafide. He submits that on account of laches or inaction on the part of an employee, the employer should not suffer. 5. Therefore, disciplinary action has been taken against him and his services had been dispensed with. He submits that the said situation was beyond the control of the petitioner company and the laches are bonafide. He submits that on account of laches or inaction on the part of an employee, the employer should not suffer. 5. Per contra learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. No satisfactory explanation of day-to-day laches has been averred in the writ petition. In most casual manner the revision had been preferred. In support of his submissions he has placed reliance on paragraphs 3, 17 and 18 of the writ petition and submitted that the averment itself clearly reflects the casual approach of the petitioner while preferring the revision and present writ petition. 6. Heard rival submissions and perused the record. 7. The reasons assigned for delay in preferring the appeal/ revision has been averred in paragraphs 3, 17 and 18 of the writ petition, which are reproduced as under:- "3. That the petitioner is Power of Attorney holder of Prabhadas Naithani and he has filed the revision before the respondent no. 1 on the basis of power of attorney. The said authorization invoke by judgment of Writ A No. 1974 of 2015 Smt. Rashmi Bhatiya And Another the Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. and also filed the present writ petition before this Hon'ble Court. 17. That the director of M/s Beston Skyvision Private Ltd. has authorised to one his employee to file the appeal/revision before the Court with engaged the counsel and challenging the order dated 26.04.2008 before the appropriate Court, but neither he engaged any counsel nor he has filed the case nor he given any status about the case therefore, the director of M/s Beston Skyvision Private Ltd. has authorized to one Anurag Srivastava through the power of attorney for filed the revision/appeal on behalf of M/s Beston Skyvision Private Ltd. 18. That after authorized through the power of attorney, Mr. Anurag Srivasta has met to one counsel and after obtained the certified copy of order on 27.6.2019, he approaches to his counsel at Board of Revenue Meerut and after prepared the revision same was filed before the Board of Revenue/C.C.R.A. Meerut with curtained grounds and also with prayer of condoned the limitation if any. Anurag Srivasta has met to one counsel and after obtained the certified copy of order on 27.6.2019, he approaches to his counsel at Board of Revenue Meerut and after prepared the revision same was filed before the Board of Revenue/C.C.R.A. Meerut with curtained grounds and also with prayer of condoned the limitation if any. A copy of memo of revision of petitioner is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 3 to this writ petition." 8. From bare perusal of the aforesaid averments, it reflects that the first time the power of attorney was executed by Prabhadass Nathani to file the revision before the first respondent and the present writ petition has also been preferred through the power of attorney holder. This clearly reflects that first time power of attorney has been executed for preferring revision in the year 2019. In such factual situation, it may be presumed that earlier neither any employee has been entrusted nor power of attorney was executed to prefer revision/ appeal. Just to make out the case, in most casual manner it is averred that earlier an employee was entrusted for filing revisional/ appeal. Neither his name nor his designation has been averred either before the revisional authority or before this Court. As such, no reliance can be placed upon such averments. 9. In Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr. vs Gopi Chand Atreja, (2019) 4 SCC 612 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that delay by a lawyer cannot be a ground for delay in filing an appeal. In the said case the respondent filed a civil suit in the Civil Court, Karnal for a mandatory injunction in relation to the suit land. The suit was decreed by the trial court vide judgment dated 01.05.2001. The appellants aggrieved with the judgment of the trial court filed a first appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Karnal. The District Court of Karnal by the judgment dated 07.02.2002, dismissed the first appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trail court. The appellants then filed a second appeal in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh after 4 years 6 months along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying to condone the delay in filing the second appeal. The High Court on 20.01.2008 rejected the application and declined to condone the delay. The appellants then filed a second appeal in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh after 4 years 6 months along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying to condone the delay in filing the second appeal. The High Court on 20.01.2008 rejected the application and declined to condone the delay. The Court further added that the second appeal is dismissed, as it is barred by limitation. The appellant further filed a review petition which the High Court again dismissed. The appellant then filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court held that if the appellant’s lawyer did not take timely steps which resulted in delay, it was the duty of the appellant to have reminded the lawyer and if even then the lawyer was not taking interest the appellant should have engaged some other lawyer. The Apex Court held that the High Court was correct in not condoning the second appeal for the following reasons, firstly, the delay was disproportionate, secondly, there was no proper explanation for the delay and thirdly, the ground alleged in support of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, does not establish an adequate cause for delay as allowed by the Law. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the revisional order. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.