JUDGMENT - S.M. JHUNJHUNUWALA, J.:---The suit Bill of Exchange is drawn by one S. Babubhai, and Company and accepted by the firm of the 1st defendants in which defendants 2 and 3 are the partners. The suit Bill of Exchange was accepted by the 2nd defendant on behalf of the 1st defendants in his capacity as a partner therein. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs against the acceptors of the suit Bill of Exchange.

2. The suit Bill of Exchange comprises of four sheets. On the first sheet bearing stamp of Rs. 10/-, the main body of the Bill of Exchange written. On the other three sheets bearing stamps of Rs. 10/-, and Rs. 1/- respectively and attached thereto, the said S. Babubhai and Co. as drawers as also the defendants in their capacity as acceptors of the suit Bill of Exchange have subscribed their signatures. Each of the said three sheets attached to the first sheet of the suit Bill of Exchange mentions that the same is attached to the suit Bill of Exchange (Hundi) bearing No. 203 dated 19th October, 1987 for Rs. 61,181.30 falling due on 8-1-1988. Looking at the suit Bill of Exchange as a whole, it is apparent that the said three sheets attached to first sheet thereof cannot be used for or applied to any other instrument than the suit Bill of Exchange. If the stamps of all the said four sheets used for the suit Bill of Exchange are taken into consideration, the suit Bill of Exchange is properly and sufficiently stamped.

3. Mr. Kukreja, the learned Advocate appearing for Defendants 1 and 3, while relying upon the unreported Judgment of this Court being the Judgment dated 26th June, 1984 in Summary Suit No. 301 of 1978 as also Judgment of this Court in (Alen Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. R.H. Windsor (I) Ltd. and other)1, reported in 1988 (3) Bom. C.R. 143 has submitted that the suit Bill of Exchange is not sufficiently stamped and as such, cannot be admitted into evidence. The facts before Bharucha, J., in Summary Suit No. 301 of 1978 and before Guttal, J., in the case of Alen Co-operative Bank Ltd., (supra) have been different than the facts of the case before me. In the case before Bharucha J., the suit was filed against the acceptor of a Bill of Exchange and an objection was raised by the Counsel for the defendants to the admissibility of the Bill of Exchange on the ground that it was not duly stamped. Seventeen Hundi papers were stitched together to make up the value of stamp fee required. The Bill of Exchange was written only on the face of the first sheet. There was towards the bottom of the first sheet a round rubber stamp bearing the name of Veer Nariman Road Branch of the plaintiffs therein within which the following was written :

"L.B.D. 2/22"

The sixteen Hundi papers of the Bill of Exchange were blank except for the same round rubber stamp at the bottom of each with the same contents (emphasis supplied). In the evidence, it was established that at the time the Bill of Exchange was written, the sixteen Hundi papers of the Bill of Exchange subsequent to the first were altogether blank (emphasis supplied). In the circumstances, it was held that the Bill of Exchange cannot be said to have been written in such manner that the paper stamped with an impressed stamps upon which it was written could not be used for or applied to any other instrument and since the provisions of section 13 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Rule 7 of the Rules made thereunder not being satisfied, the provisions of section 15 and consequently of section 35 of the said Act would be attracted. Hence, the Bill of Exchange was held to be unstamped and not receivable in evidence. Before Guttal J., the Hundi was written on the first sheet. Annexed to this sheet, were two additional blank Hundi papers, each of which bears the signature of 2nd defendant therein (emphasis supplied). No portion of the Hundi was written on these sheets. The three Hundi papers together made up the requisite stamp duty. On these facts, the question arose whether Hundi was duly

Click Here to Read the rest of this document