2006 (10) TMI 479 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as amended by the Indian Stamp (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1990.
2. Applicability of Section 38 of the Indian Stamp Act.
3. Judicial determination of the admissibility of insufficiently stamped documents.

Summary:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899
The primary issue was the interpretation of Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as amended by the Indian Stamp (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1990. The court examined whether Section 36, which states that once an instrument is admitted in evidence, its admissibility cannot be questioned on the grounds of insufficient stamping, was applicable. The court held that Section 36 provides a "stand alone" clause prohibiting the reopening of matters regarding stamp duty sufficiency once the document is admitted in evidence, except as provided in Section 61. The court emphasized that objections to the admissibility of a document must be raised at the appropriate stage, and failure to do so results in the loss of the right to contest it later.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 38 of the Indian Stamp Act
The appellant filed an application u/s 38 of the Indian Stamp Act, which outlines the procedure for dealing with impounded documents. The court found that Section 38 was not applicable in this case as it pertains to the steps required upon impounding a document. The court noted that the appellant did not raise the issue of the applicability of Sub-Section (4) of Section 33 of the Act.

Issue 3: Judicial Determination of the Admissibility of Insufficiently Stamped Documents
The court discussed the necessity of judicial determination when an objection to the admissibility of a document is raised due to insufficient stamping. It cited previous judgments, including Javer Chand & Ors. vs. Pukhraj Surana [AIR 1961 SC 1655], which established that once a document is admitted in evidence, it cannot be questioned later. The court reiterated that objections must be raised at the time the document is tendered in evidence to allow the trial judge to determine the issue judicially. The court concluded that the appellant, having consented to the document being marked as an exhibit, could not later contest its admissibility.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, dismissing the appellant's applications and review petition. The court affirmed that Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act applies on its own force and that objections to the admissibility of documents must be timely raised. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and counsel's fee was quantified at Rs. 5,000/-.