2003 (11) TMI 335 - SUPREME COURT

Whether the State Legislature had the legislative competence to impose stamp duty on the order of amalgamation passed by a court?

Whether an order sanctioning a scheme of amalgamation under section 394 read with section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, is liable to be stamped in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act in its application in the State of Maharashtra?

Held that:- Appeal dismissed. We do not agree "Transfer of Property" has been defined in section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to mean an act by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future to one more other living persons. Company or association or body of individual, whether incorporated or not, have been included amongst the "living person" in this section. It clearly brings out that a company can effect transfer of property. The word "inter vivos" in the context of section 394 of the Companies Act would include within its meaning also a transfer between two ‘juristic persons’ or a transfer to which a ‘juristic person’ is one of the parties. The transaction between a minor or a person of unsound mind with the other person would not be recognised in law, though the same is between two living beings, as they are not juristic persons in the eyes of law who can by mutual consent enter in a contract or transfer the property.