1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned AGP for the respondents.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner has raised contention that according to the petitioner the document is covered under the entry at Article 36 in the schedule of the Act whereas the respondent authorities have considered the document as covered under the entry at Article 6 of the schedule of the Act which is incorrect and unjustified inasmuch as the petitioner has merely deposited the title deed while availing loan facility.
3. The said contention is opposed by learned AGP and it is contended that having regard to the subject and text of the document, it is appropriately categorized by the competent authority.
4. The issue requires consideration. Hence Rule. However considering the facts of the case and the fact that the document was tendered against loan as back as in 2000 and demand for payment of shortfall was raised in March 2007 i.e. before almost five years, interim relief as prayed for does not deserve to be granted. More particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner was given an option, before making this order to deposit the amount of difference in the Court however, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is neither willing nor able to deposit the amount. Hence interim relief is refused.
(K.M.THAKER,J.) Suresh* Top