Home Speak to a lawyer Meet a lawyer Flat fee services About Blog Judgements Careers Contact Us Snippet Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy Legal Topics
Shyamal Kumar V/s Sushil Kumar Agarwal
Recent Post

Get Legato App on your mobile.

Shyamal Kumar V/s Sushil Kumar Agarwal
Shyamal Kumar V/s Sushil Kumar Agarwal

Facts of the Case

This appeal has been filed before the Honorable Supreme Court pursuing to the order passed by the 2nd Civil Judge (Senior Division) of the dismal which bring in the consideration the precise interpretation of section 36 of the Indian Stamp (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1990. The appellant has been pleading against the contrary of the order passed.

The fact of the case has no errors or no observation any term was needed for concluding that the cognizance in the question of law regarding few sections in the Act had given a fixed interpretation. The appellant and respondent in the matter formed and entered into an agreement to build a property which also is the subject matter of the suit. The dispute that took place and resulted in this suit is due to an appellant has purported to terminate the said agreement. The then respondent filed a suit pleading before the Munsif’s 3rd Court on 10/01/1997 seeking a declaration and permanent injunction on the property of the suit. The court passed an order in favour of the then respondent further when an appeal was being filed before the appellate court the same order was affirmed in the favor of the then respondent.  Later to the order passed by the revisional court setting aside the order of the appellate court was challenged by filing the suit in the Honorable High Court of Calcutta. The dismissal by the High Court further led to this appeal.

Issues of the Case

  1. What is the Interpretation of the scope of the Indian Stamp (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1990?
  2. Deciding the interpretation of diction 36.

Judgment

The observation made by the Honorable Supreme Court are hereby, though the purpose of the Indian Stamp Act, 1990 was to collect the revenue for the state further the amendment carried out by the State of West Bengal were more stringent steps or direction to meet its objective effectively. Section 33(4) of the Indian Stamp Act clearly cast a duty upon the court to apply its own mind or precise interpretation will contemplating the correct objective law when there any document is not stamped or insufficiently stamped, though such duty has been casted but such section was not in any way were to make another proviso of the law to be made inapplicable.

The Honorable Court while making its observation after a thorough reading of section 33,35,38,39,40 and 61 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 states that if any document is submitted as evidence in the matter by a part but the same document is in dispute as raised by any other party due in violation of the proviso of the Indian Stamp Act or is unduly or insufficiently stamped the court is to apply its own mind in deciding whether to impound such document submitted to further decided the matter the court is at the obligation to use its jurisdictional authority over such issues.

Section 33 of the Act envisages the motive and with interpretation to protect the party who has submitted the document and also to reserve or protect the revenue of the state. The court further states that no court i.e. Trial Court, Court of Appeal or Revisionary Court has any authority to dismiss or go back to its inception to decide whether the document is admissible or not if it not duly stamped, a document once without any objection is states as a exhibit such authority arises regarding the admissibility of the document. If at all time any document which was states and submitted as the exhibit with the objection raised can be questioned with the admissibility in this case section 36 of the Act will be out of scope.

The Honorable Court states that the decision passed in the appeal by the court has no application in the circumstances mentioned in the above matter.  The Supreme Court upholding the judgement passed by the High Court states that no error is been committed while dismissing the matter. The above-mentioned stand disposed with counsel fee quantified at Rs 5,000/-

Case No.: CA 4609 of 2006
Date: 31/10/2006

All Comments