9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: The admissibility of a promissory note in the context of stamp duty adequacy.
Summary: 1. The petitioner filed a suit for recovery based on a promissory note, objected by the respondent due to stamp paper purchased in another state. 2. The trial court upheld the objection citing Rule 3(iii) of the Indian Stamp Rules. 3. The petitioner argued that the validity of the promissory note cannot be tested based on the state of stamp paper purchase, citing relevant legal provisions and a Supreme Court judgment. 4. The suit involved a promissory note executed on a stamp paper purchased in a different state, leading to the objection based on Rule 3(iii) of the Rules. 5. The rule mandates the use of state-specific stamp papers for instruments chargeable with duty, as discussed in detail by the trial court. 6. Two key questions arose: interpretation of "instruments chargeable with duty under the Act" and the curability of the defect arising from using stamp paper from another state. 7. The Act's central legislation empowers Parliament to enact stamp duty rates, distinguishing between Union and State List provisions. 8. The Supreme Court precedent clarified the applicability of central laws to instruments like promissory notes. 9. The trial court's reliance on Rule 3(iii) was challenged, emphasizing the curability of defects under Section 37 of the Act. 10. The mechanism under Section 37 and Rule 18 allows for curing defects related to stamp paper descriptions. 11. The primary purpose of stamp paper use is to authenticate transactions, with revenue collection being secondary. 12. The court allowed the revision petition, overruling the objection on the promissory note's admissibility based on stamp paper origin.
|
