1927 (1) TMI 4 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge to order deposit of stamp duty and penalty.
2. Classification of the documents as promissory notes or bonds under the Stamp Act.
3. Admissibility of the documents in evidence and jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge under Sections 35 and 36 of the Stamp Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners challenged the orders of the Subordinate Judge directing them to deposit stamp duty and penalty for three documents related to suits for money recovery. The first contention raised was regarding the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge to issue such orders. The second contention involved the classification of the documents as promissory notes or bonds under the Stamp Act.

2. Addressing the second contention first, the documents contained unconditional undertakings to pay a sum of money to a specific person on demand, attested by witnesses. The petitioner argued that the documents should be considered payable to order based on the Negotiable Instruments Act amendment of 1919. However, the court held that the documents, as they appeared on the face, were bonds under the Stamp Act as they were attested by witnesses and not payable to order or bearer. Thus, the contention that the documents were promissory notes failed.

3. Moving to the first contention, it was argued that the documents were not admitted in evidence by the court, and the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction under Section 35 of the Stamp Act as the suits had already been disposed of and decrees signed and sealed. The court agreed that once the suits were concluded, the Subordinate Judge lacked jurisdiction to re-open the matter under Section 35 of the Act. Therefore, the Subordinate Judge's actions were deemed inappropriate.

4. Consequently, the court made the Rules absolute, setting aside the orders for deposit of stamp duty and penalty. As the petitioners did not succeed in their main contention regarding the classification of the documents, no costs were awarded in their favor. The judgment clarified the jurisdictional limitations of the Subordinate Judge under the Stamp Act and affirmed the classification of the documents as bonds, emphasizing adherence to the provisions of the law in such matters.