SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The scope of the present writ petition is limited. The respondent-State demanded stamp duty on a music licence agreement entered into between the petitioner no.1, Saregama India Limited, which is a music company, and a third party by the name of Triller Inc., a Delaware Corporation of the United States. The stamp duty charged was on the premise that the agreement was an instrument of conveyance as opposed to an agreement as urged by the petitioners.

(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioners argues that to come within Article 23 of Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (as amended in West Bengal), an instrument has to be a conveyance as defined in Sec. 2(10) of the said Act. It is argued that the said definition necessarily indicates that there must be a final transfer of right, title and interest akin to a sale with regard to a movable or immovable property. Analogies are sought to be drawn with Ss. 5 and 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. On the other hand, the present agreement involves a mere grant of licence as defined in Sec. 52 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, as per which where one person grants to another, or to a definite number of other persons, a right to do, or continue to do, in or upon the immovable property of the grantor, something which would, in the absence of such right, be unlawful, and such right does not amount to an easement or an interest in the property, the right is called a license.

(3.) Learned senior counsel then highlights certain clauses of the agreement, in particular Clauses 2(a), 2(b), 2(d), 3(c), 7(a), 7(c), and 13(c).A comprehensive perusal of the said clauses, it is argued, indicates that the transfer is limited to non-exclusive and non-transferable rights and does not constitute a transfer of the ownership. The ownership and title are retained by the petitioner no.1-Company. It is argued that mere creation of rights which are remunerative does not automatically make an agreement a conveyance. It is argued that at best, stamp as stipulated in Article 5(e) of Schedule IA chargeable for an 'agreement" can be imposed on the present music licence agreement. Hence, the document-in-question ought to have been charged as an agreement and not as a conveyance.