Summary
Contracts granting municipal collection rights over Tehbazari and parking fees were held to be leases for stamp-duty purposes. The Stamp Act’s extended definition expressly includes instruments letting tolls of any description, regardless of whether the ordinary property-law concept of a lease would apply.
Issues
- Whether municipal fee-collection contracts attracted stamp duty as leases or licences.
- How the Stamp Act’s inclusive lease definition applies to rights to collect tolls and fees.
Provisions considered
- Section2(16)(c), Indian Stamp Act, 1899The extended definition includes an instrument letting tolls of any description and covered the municipal collection rights. (¶¶ 12–13, 16–21, 26–27)
- Sections2(12) and2(14), Indian Stamp Act, 1899The signed contracts created reciprocal rights and liabilities and therefore met the execution and instrument definitions. (¶¶ 12, 14–15, 22)
Held
- The Stamp Act’s lease definition is wider than the Transfer of Property Act definition. Its inclusive language creates a statutory category covering the letting of tolls, and tolls of any description encompasses the relevant municipal fees and charges. (¶ 16–21)
- The municipality let its right to collect fees from squatters, vendors and kiosks and parking users. These were therefore lease instruments chargeable under Article35, rather than mere shop-occupation licence arrangements. (¶¶ 16, 21–22, 26–27)
- The shop-licence decision in New Bus-stand Shop Owners Association concerned different agreements and did not govern the letting of toll-collection rights here. (¶ 23–26)
Result
Appeals dismissed; classification of the contracts as leases under section2(16)(c), chargeable at the applicable Article35 ScheduleI rates, upheld.