9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (9) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 7 dated April 4, 1956, was served upon the petitioner on or about May 1, 1956. The certificate case was adjourned from time to time and on April 4, 1961, the Certificate Officer made an order for attachment of a sum of ₹ 2,366.40 nP. lying to the credit of the petitioner's account with Messrs. Hindusthan Mercantile Bank of 201 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Calcutta. On May 23, 1961, the petitioner applied to the Certificate Officer for cancellation of the order for attachment on the ground that (a) the notice under section 7 had not been served upon her and (b) further execution of the certificate was barred by the law of limitation. The petition was fixed for hearing on June 6, 1961. By his order dated June 6, 1961, the Certificate Officer dismissed the petition on the ground that (a) the petition was barred and (b) no one appeared in support of the petition at the time when it was taken up for hearing. The order-sheet, however, noted that a lawyer appeared on behalf of the petitioner at 2 p.m. on the same date. An appeal preferred by the petitioner under section 51(1)(b) was dismissed by the Commissioner, Presidency Division, by his order dated May 1, 1961. The Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses on the question of the validity of West Bengal Act XI of 1961. The certificate was signed on and was dated March 31, 1956, whereas the notice under section 7 was signed on and was dated April 9, 1956. The petitioner contends that the certificate as also the notice under section 7 are rendered invalid by reason of the fact that they were not signed on and do not bear the same date. We are unable to accept this contention. The notice under section 7 need not be signed on the same date on which the certificate is signed. The notice was dated April 9, 1956, as it was signed on that date. A notice issued on April 9, 1956, could not be correctly dated March 31, 1956. The body of the notice stated that a certificate............ has this day been filed in my office. The order dated March 31, 1956, directed the entry of the certificate in the register. But it is not known when the certificate was actually entered in that register and was filed in the office of the Certificate Officer. Assuming that the certificate was filed in the office on March 31, 1956, and that the statement in the body of the notice that it was filed on April 9, 1956, was incorrect, I am of the opinion that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ammatical variations and cognate expressions. A similar definition of the word sign will be found in section 3(56) of the Central General Clauses Act, 1897. Now a person can sign his name by using a pen and ink, but the use of pen and ink is not essential for a signature. He may well sign his name by stamping his facsimile signature with a rubber stamp. The impression of a facsimile signature is not a mere mark or symbol, it distinctly identifies the individual whose signature it purports to be. In order that a person may sign his name by stamping his facsimile signature, it is not necessary that he should be unable to write his name. In Nirmal Chunder Bandopadhya v. Saratmoni Debya [1898] I.L.R. 25 Cal. 911, a Division Bench of this court had occasion to consider section 50 of the Indian Succession Act, 1865, which required that for the valid execution of the will the testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence or by his direction . For a number of years the testator in that case had been in the habit of using a name stamp as he was unable to read or write. That name stamp used to be kept by a servant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case, Haraprosad Gain v. Gopal Chandra Gain [1927] 31 C.W.N. 299, was correctly decided and we should follow that case in preference to the case, Abanindra Kumar Maity v. A.K. Biswas [1954] 58 C.W.N. 573. I may add that in the instant case the point that the notice is invalid on this particular ground was not taken in the tribunals below. The point is taken for the first time in this court and for all that we know the Certificate Officer by his own hand affixed the name stamp on the copy of the notice delivered to the petitioner. The original notice signed by the petitioner's son bears the manuscript signature of the Certificate Officer. These features of the instant case distinguish it from the decision in Abanindra Kumar Maity v. A.K. Biswas [1954] 58 C.W.N. 573. The conflict of judicial opinion on this point was noticed by P.B. Mukharji J. in Matter No. 56 of 1957 (Seth Ottanmal v. Certificate Officer [1963] 67 C.W.N. 547 decided on February 12, 1958, and the learned judge refused to quash the certificate proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution on this ground as no question of jurisdiction was involved. The petitioner next contends that execution of the cert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
