9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 1080X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 21st March, 1996 for Pound Sterling 38,970/-, (ii) an invoice dated 11th April. 1996 for Pound Sterling 38,970 and (iii) an invoice dated 1st May, 1996 for Pound Sterling 30,344/-. The Plaintiff drew three Bills of Exchange which were duly accepted by the First Defendant, these being as follows : (a) Bill of Exchange dated 11th April, 1996 in the sum of Pound Sterling 38,970.00; (b) Bill of Exchange dated 20th May, 1996 in the sum of Pound Sterling 38,970.00; and (c) Bill of Exchange dated 30th May, 1996, in the sum of Pound Sterling 30,344.64. The Bills of Exchange dated 11th April, 1996 and 20th May, 1996 were drawn payable at sight, while the Bill of Exchange dated 30th May, 1996 was payable at 70 days sight from E.T. A. (Estimated Time of Arrival of the goods). The E.T.A. is described as 11.6.1996. 3. By its Fax message dated 23rd May, 1996, the First Defendant requested the Plaintiff to relax the payment terms of the first two Bills of Exchange drawn at sight by allowing at least 60 days interest free credit from the date of clearance/delivery of the consignments. Acting on this request, the Plaintiff addressed a communication dated 24th May, 1996 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiff supplied three consignments of goods to the Defendants; (2) of the receipt of goods supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendants; (3) of the liability of the Defendants to pay for the goods which were duly received; and (4) of the fact that the First Defendant had made a part payment of Pound Sterling 20,000/- towards the payment of the invoices of the Plaintiff. In para 6 of the reply, the Defendants deny that they have admitted the liability to pay the amount claimed in the Plaint and in para 9 there is a denial that the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree in the amount as claimed or for interest as claimed. 8. Before dealing with the main controversy which was the subject matter of the submissions at the hearing of the Summons for Judgment, it would be necessary to reject at the outset the defence that the Plaintiff has claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum, which they are not entitled. The suit is filed on Bills of Exchange and the Plaintiff is clearly entitled to interest at 18% per annum in view of the provisions of Section 80 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881. Similarly, there is no substance in the contention that the Bills of Exchange having been neg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a public office before whom any instrument, chargeable, in his opinion, with duty is produced or comes in the performance of his functions. Section 35 provides that no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence or shall be acted upon registered or authenticated by any such person or by any Public Officer unless such instrument is duly stamped. Under proviso (a) to Section 35, a power is given to the officer concerned, to admit the instrument in evidence on the payment of a duty and penalty. The proviso is material for the present purposes and is as follows : (a) any such instrument not being on instrument chargeable with a duty not exceeding ten naye paise only, or a Bill of Exchange or Promissory Note, shall, subject to all just exceptions, be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable or, in the case of an instrument insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty, together with a penalty of five rupees, or, when ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds five rupees, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocument where the duty chargeable does not exceed 10 paise or a Bill of Exchange or a Promissory Note. Therefore, whereas an instrument which is chargeable with duty can be admitted in evidence by a person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, upon the payment of duty and penalty, as the case may be, this would not apply to the excepted categories of instruments specified in proviso (a) to Section 35. Similarly, the power of the Collector impounding an instrument under Section 37 or receiving an instrument sent to him under sub-section (2) of section 38 to certify the instrument upon the payment of proper duly or penalty is not attracted to an instrument falling in the excepted category. The view which I take is fortified by a Judgment of a Learned Single Judge of this Court, D. R. Dhanuka, J. in Kallappa Pundlik Reddi v. Laxmibai Dattoba Vellaram,. A similar view was taken by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Thenappa Chettiar v. Andiyapp Chettiar,. 11. In the alternative, it was urged on behalf of the Plaintiff that the Bills of Exchange in the present case are not payable on demand and are, therefore, not subject to payment of stamp d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is concerned, the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff emphasised that 'Bill of Exchange payable on demand' includes an order for the payment of any sum of money by a Bill of Exchange or Promissory Note or for the delivery of Bill of Exchange or Promissory Note in satisfaction of any sum of money or for the payment of any sum of money out of any particular fund which may or may not be available or upon any condition or contingency which may or may not be performed or happened. In the present case, the first two Bills of Exchange were drawn at sight, while the third Bill of Exchange was payable 70 days on sight after the estimated time of arrival. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff submitted that in any event, the first two Bills of Exchange were payable at sight and the modification which was brought about was only in the terms of collection upon the request of the Defendants that they may be granted some additional or extended time to pay the amount due under the two Bills of Exchange. The submission was that even if the terms of collection of the two Bills of Exchange and the terms of the third Bill of Exchange are taken into consideration, it would b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of any sum of money by a Bill of Exchange or Promissory Note; (ii) an order for the delivery of any Bill of Exchange or Promissory Note in satisfaction of any sum of money; (iii) an order for payment of any sum of money out of any particular fund which may or may not be available; and (iv) an order for the payment of any sum of money upon any condition or contingency which may not be performed or happen. Similarly, an order for the payment of any sum of money weekly, monthly, or at any other stated period is considered to be a Bill of Exchange payable on demand under clause (b) of sub-section (3). These provisions of sub-section (3) would demonstrate that for the purposes of the fiscal enactment which the Stamp Act is, the Legislature adopted an extended definition of what constitutes a Bill of Exchange payable on demand. This definition extends the ordinary meaning of the expression as known in common parlance or for that matter as adopted by the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. No stamp duty is payable on a Bill of Exchange payable on demand. 13. In the present case, the Bill of Exchange dated 11th April, 1996 in the amount of Pound Sterling 38,970 and the Bill of Exch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Indian Stamp Act, 1899. At the same time, regard must well be had to what Mr. Justice J. C. Shah, as the Learned Chief Justice then was, observed in Hindustan Steel Ltd, v. M/s. Dilip Construction Co.,. The Learned Judge observed that the Stamp Act is a fiscal measure enacted to secure revenue for the State on certain classes of instruments and is not enacted to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality to meet the case of his opponents. The Supreme Court In Badat and Co. v. East India Trading Co., while construing the provisions of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, took notice of the fact that in the matter of mofussil pleadings , the Courts relying upon the proviso to Rule 5 had tolerated a certain degree of laxity in the pleadings in the interests of justice. The Supreme Court, however, held that different considerations may perhaps have to apply when a pleading on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court does not contain a traverse of the contents of the Plaint. Subba Rao., J. as the Learned Chief Justice then was, held thus : But on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court, we are told, the pleadings are drafted by trained lawyers bestowing serious t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
