9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein for declaration and permanent injunction in the court of the Munsif, 3rd Court, Sealdah on 10.1.1997. An interim order of injunction was passed in the suit, which although was affirmed by the Appellate Court, but has been set aside by the Revisional Court. Respondent thereafter filed a suit for specific performance of the contract on 8.1.1999, inter alia, which was marked as Title Suit No.4 of 1999, praying for the following reliefs : i) A decree to be passed for specific performance of Contract Agreement dated 16th day of January, 1995 directing thereby the defendant to perform his part of the contract by way of rendering the exclusive right to the plaintiff to have free access into the suit property for raising rest of the construction in respect of second and third floors of the suit premises and to execute a registered deed or deeds of conveyance in respect of flats to be completed in the second floor and third floor of the suit premises in favour of the plaintiff or in favour of his nominees on receipt of balance consideration thereof and commanding the defendant to extend all sorts of cooperation with the plaintiff as would be required for construction of the plaintif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as further drawn to Schedule 1A of the West Bengal Amendment Act in terms whereof stamp duty on instruments have been fixed and have undergone further amendment by the West Bengal Finance Act, 2006. It was also contended that the High Court also committed a serious error in not entertaining the review application, although many important questions were raised therein. Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for Respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the application filed by Respondent herein was barred under the proviso appended to Sub-Section (5) of Section 33 of the West Bengal Act. It was further urged that Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act has rightly been applied as Appellant admitted the document to be taken in evidence without any demur whatsoever. Before embarking upon rival contentions of the parties, we may notice the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act as amended in the State of West Bengal by the Indian Stamp (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1990 : Indian Stamp Act was, indisputably, enacted keeping in view the revenue of the State. It defines instrument under Section 2(14) to mean : 2.(14) Instrument includes every document by which any right or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is not in dispute that Development Agreement dated 16.1.1995 was typed on a non-judicial stamp paper of ₹ 10/-. It was also not registered. We, however, in this matter are not concerned with the effect of non- registration of the said instrument. There is no doubt or dispute that in terms of Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, as amended by the State of West Bengal, a duty is cast upon the authorities concerned including the Courts to impound a document where the instrument produced before it is insufficiently stamped. When a deficiency in stamp duty is brought to the notice of the Collector or it otherwise comes to his notice, he may call for the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the adequacy placed thereon and proceed to deal with the instrument in terms of Section 38 thereof. Section 36, however, provides for a 'stand alone' clause. It categorically prohibits a court of law from reopening a matter in regard to the sufficiency or otherwise of the stamp duty paid on an instrument in the event the same has been admitted in evidence. Only one exception has been made in this behalf, viz., the provisions contained in Section 61 providing for r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stage. He may not do so only at his peril. Objection as regards admissibility of a document, thus, specifically required to be taken that it was not duly stamped. On such objection only the question is required to be determined judicially. Reliance has been placed on Ram Rattan (Dead) by Legal Representatives vs. Bajrang Lal Ors. [AIR 1978 SC 1393], which in our opinion has no application to the fact of the present case. When there had been no determination as regards sufficiency of the stamp duty paid on an instrument and in the event the document is taken in evidence with an endorsement, that objected, allowed subject to objection , this Court in Ram Rattan (supra) held that the objection was not judicially determined and the document was merely tentatively marked and in such a situation Section 36 would not be attracted. Ram Rattan (supra) also, therefore, is an authority for the proposition that the party objecting to the admissibility of the document must raise an objection so as to enable the trial judge to determine the issue upon application of his judicial mind at the appropriate stage. If no objection had been made by Appellant herein in regard to the admis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edule 1A. There is no quarrel with the aforementioned proposition of law. In Biswajit Chakraborty vs. Mira Sen Ray [2002 (2) CLJ 449], the Calcutta High Court was dealing with a case where an objection was raised that the document tendered was insufficiently stamped, holding : My reading of the provisions of Sections 33, 35, 38, 39, 40 61 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is that when a document is tendered in evidence by a party and an objection is raised by the other side that the document is insufficiently stamped, at that stage, the Court assumes the jurisdiction to impound the document as it was obligatory to apply the mind of the Court in accordance with the relevant provisions of the said Act. The object of Section 33 is to protect the revenue and as such the Court or such person, as referred to in the said section, must however, exercise the powers as envisaged under the said section, if necessary, suo motu, irrespective of the raising of objection by any of the party. Again, we are not concerned such a question in this appeal. In Mujibar Rahman Mondal v. Md. Abdulla Molla Ors. [2005 (1) CLJ (Cal.) 249], this Court held:- ...The Court has to judicially det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
