9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Impounding of document for improper stamping, recovery of penalty, legality of impounding order
Impounding of Document for Improper Stamping: The judgment involves two revision petitions arising from the impounding of a document, Ex. A, by the Subordinate Judge of Narasapur due to improper stamping. The document was filed in a suit upon a promissory note and was tendered in evidence, filed, and proved on a specific date. Subsequently, the Judge impounded the document upon realizing the improper stamping and sent it to the Collector for penalty imposition. The Collector levied a penalty, which was later recovered from the plaintiff. The District Munsif initially decreed in favor of the plaintiff, citing Section 29 of the Stamp Act. However, the High Court held that Section 44 of the Stamp Act governs the recovery process post-document production in court. The Court emphasized that for the plaintiff to recover the penalty under Section 44, it must have been included in the costs at the time of passing the decree; otherwise, no separate proceeding can be initiated for recovery. Recovery of Penalty: Regarding the recovery of the penalty, the High Court clarified that Section 29 of the Stamp Act applies when the document is not produced before the Court. However, once the document is produced, tendered in evidence, and judgment is delivered, the recovery right shifts to Section 44 of the Stamp Act. The Court highlighted that the penalty amount must be included in the costs during the decree passing to enable subsequent recovery proceedings. The judgment emphasized that without such inclusion, the plaintiff lacks the right to initiate a separate recovery process, as outlined in Section 44. Legality of Impounding Order: The High Court also addressed the legality of the impounding order issued by the Subordinate Judge. The Court deemed the impounding of the document as illegal, emphasizing that once a document is admitted in evidence and judgment is delivered, the Judge becomes functus officio. Referring to legal precedents, the Court stated that after admitting a document and delivering judgment, the Judge cannot re-open the matter to impound the document. The judgment cited previous cases to support the view that the proper remedy for the Collector, if necessary, is to act under Section 61 of the Stamp Act. Ultimately, the High Court set aside the impounding order, highlighting the illegality of the Subordinate Judge's actions and allowing the petitioner to seek a refund from the revenue authorities without imposing any costs. This detailed analysis of the judgment reflects the Court's thorough examination of the issues surrounding the impounding of a document for improper stamping, the recovery of penalties under the Stamp Act, and the legality of the impounding order issued by the Subordinate Judge.
|
