9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (5) TMI 375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V. V. K. Samy outside India. For the purposes of these civil revision petitions, it is not necessary to notice in extenso the defences raised by the petitioners in the two suits instituted by the first respondent in C.R.P. 4455 of 1987 and the respondent in C.R.P. 4457 of 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent). When the instruments, on the basis of which, the suits had been instituted,. were sought to be marked during the course of trial of the suits, through P.W. I in the box, an objection was raised by the petitioner herein that the instruments sued upon are not promissory notes and that they have also not been properly stamped and therefore they are inadmissible in evidence . The court below overruled the objections so raised on behalf of the petitioner and it is the correctness of this order that is challenged in these revisions. 2. The first contention of the. learned counsel for the petitioner is that the instruments, on the basis of which, the suits had been instituted, are not promissory notes. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted, drawing attention to Ss. 4 and 5 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to is the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amounts mentioned in the instruments, at 12 per cent per annum payable from 30-10-1982 and 1-11-1982, till the date of payment and that the courts of the Republic of Seychelles, Singapore and India shall have jurisdiction for actions taken on the promissory notes. 4A. Whether the aforesaid terms and conditions would in any manner affect the unconditional undertaking to pay, found in the instruments, may now be considered. The first so-called condition fixes a time for payment as 30-10-1984 in one case and -1984in the other. This does not in any manner affect the undertaking contained in the instruments to pay the amount. The provision regarding the payment of interest also does not have any bearing upon the undertaking as well as the promise to pay the amounts mentioned in the instruments. The further provision regarding the jurisdiction of the courts, cannot also in any manner detract from the unconditional nature of the undertaking contained in the instruments to pay an ascertained certain sum of money to the respondent. Though from the recitals found in the instruments sued upon, it may appear as if the undertaking and promise to pay found therein, is subject to certain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to refer to the decision in The nappa ChettiaT v. Aq4iAppa Chettiart AIR 1971 Mad 290, where the question arose whether a provision in a promissory note expressed to be payable on the lapse of a certain period, would make the promise as well as the undertaking to pay conditional within the meaning of S. 4 of the Act. In that case under the terms of the instrument sued upon, the promisor agreed to repay the amount after two years and the question arose whether an instrument containing such a provision, would be a promissory note, and if so whether it would be payable otherwise than on demand. While holding that despite the stipulation regarding time for payment, the instrument would be a promissory note, though payable otherwise than on demand, even within the extended definition of a promissory not under S. 2(22) of the stamp Act, the division Bench pointed out that it could be so, both under S. 4 of the Act as well as under S. 2(22) of the Stamp Act and Ss. 4 and 5 of the Negotiable instruments Act, observed as follows- - Though the amount is payable only after two years, it cannot be said that payment is conditional within the meaning of S. 4. The document contains an unc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere the promissory note comes into the hands of any holder in India. In this case, it has to be remembered that the respondent, who is himself the promisee, has instituted the suits for the recovery of the amounts due under the promissory notes, properly stamped. outside India. In such a situation, there is no question of endorsement, transfer or negotiation by the first holder in India and therefore, there is no obligation to affix proper stamp and cancel the same. That this is so, been laid down by several decisions. In Griffin v. Weather by (1868) 3 QB 753, anacdon was brought for recovery of money on the basis of a foreign bill of exchange drawn in the Isle of Man payable in Shrewsbury. England, and it did not require a stamp as a foreign bill, except when presented for payment or endorsed or transferred or otherwise negotiated in the United Kingdom and it was held that as it had nix been dealt with in any one of the aforesaid ways. it was ,admissible in evidence without stamp. In Simulu Ebrahim Rowthean v. Abdul Rahiman Mahomed (1898) 8 MLJ 182 Shephard O.C. J. held, that as the plaintiff had not endorsed ,transferred or otherwise negotiated the promissory note sued upon befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bility created by the promissory note and the requirement of stamp under S. 19 of the Stamp Act,arises%%henihe first holder in British India does any one of the things, viz, presentation for acceptance or for payment, or endorses, transfers or otherwise negotiates it in British India, and when none of these things was done, the promissory note did not require British stamping. It was further pointed out that when the promissory note executed outside British India was brought into India by the promisee himself and an acknowledgment under S. 20 of the Limitation Act had been obtained and thereafter, the suit was laid by the promisee, there was no need for stamping. It is not disputed that in this case the promisee himself had instituted the suit and that there is no endorsement, transfer or negotiation by the respondent and the occasion for affixing proper stamps and their cancellation did not arise and therefore the objection regarding inadmissibility of the promissory note in evidence was rightly overruled by the court below., For the aforesaid reasons, the civil revision petitions fail and are dismissed with costs. 7. Petitions dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Indian ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
