9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 13 of the Indian Stamp Act and Rule 7 of the Central Provinces and Berar Stamp Rules, 1942. Analysis: The judgment in question involves the interpretation of Section 13 of the Indian Stamp Act and Rule 7 of the Central Provinces and Berar Stamp Rules, 1942. The main issue revolves around the utilization of stamp papers when drawing up an instrument. Bhave, J. had taken a strict view that all stamp papers must be utilized for the instrument, with part of it on each sheet, to prevent subsequent addition of stamps to make up for any deficit duty. However, Tankha, J. doubted this view, leading to a reference for clarification. The primary contention was whether the stringent interpretation of Section 13 and Rule 7, as held by Bhave, J., was necessary or if a more lenient approach should be adopted. The advocate for the non-applicant argued that the purpose of these provisions was to ensure the stamp could not be reused, and that mere defacing or crossing out the paper should suffice. Reference was made to the Supreme Court's stance that the Stamp Act should not be used as a technicality to defeat claims. The judges analyzed various authorities cited by the counsel, emphasizing that the cancellation of stamps should be effective to prevent reuse. They highlighted that the purpose of the Stamp Act was revenue collection, not to provide technical loopholes for litigants. The judges concluded that the interpretation should be more flexible, focusing on whether the stamp was effectively utilized at the time of drawing up the instrument, rather than a strict requirement for each sheet to contain part of the instrument. In light of the arguments and authorities presented, the judges found Bhave, J.'s interpretation too narrow and stringent. They concurred with the views expressed in the cited authorities, emphasizing that the evidence of stamp utilization should be the determining factor, rather than a strict adherence to placing part of the instrument on each sheet. The Civil Revisions were directed to be placed before an appropriate Bench for further proceedings.
|
