9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Impounding of insufficiently stamped document and determination of stamp duty and penalty u/s Bombay Stamp Act, 1958.
Impounding of document: The respondent filed a suit for recovery, relying on a document acknowledged by the petitioner. The document was found to be insufficiently stamped, and the respondent offered to pay penalty and deficit stamp duty. The document was impounded by the court, as per section 33 of the Bombay Stamp Act, which mandates impounding of inadequately stamped instruments by any person empowered to receive evidence. Prohibition on admitting in evidence: Section 34 of the Act prohibits admitting inadequately stamped instruments in evidence. The court cannot determine the stamp duty payable on an instrument; this power lies with the Collector. The Civil Court's jurisdiction is limited to recording whether an instrument is duly stamped. If a document is not sufficiently stamped, it must be impounded, and a true copy sent to the Collector for adjudication. Procedure for admitting document: After adjudication by the Collector and payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty, the document can be admitted in evidence. The court cannot read the document in evidence until compliance with stamp duty requirements. The trial court's determination of deficit stamp duty and penalty is without jurisdiction; only the Collector can make such determinations. Court's order: The impugned order was modified to require the trial court to impound the document and forward a true copy to the Collector for adjudication. The respondent can pay deficit stamp duty and penalty, provide a certificate of compliance, and then the document can be admitted in evidence if duly proved and admissible. The court clarified that it did not adjudicate on the document's proof or evidentiary value. The writ petition was partly allowed in the specified terms.
|
