The obligation to pay stamp duty lies with the party relying on the instrument, and the court's review power is limited to evident errors, not merits.

JUDGMENT :

SOUMEN SEN, J.

1. Both the plaintiff and the defendant have filed review applications separately with regard to the payment of stamp duty as directed by the judgment and order dated 25th August, 2023. This judgment is under review.

2. The grounds are different. However, it pertains to a direction by the Hon’ble Division Bench for payment of stamp duty on instrument dated 7th July, 2008 described as Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

3. The first review applicant, West Bengal Financial Corporation and the second review applicant Efcalon Tie Up Private Limited for the sake of convenience and brevity are described as Corporation and Efcalon respectively.

4. The order under review was challenged by WBFC in a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary no. 7735 of 2024. The said review application was dismissed as withdrawn on 06.05.2024 in view of the submission made by the learned Counsel on behalf of Corporation that the said corporation shall file a review application in so far as the WBFC has been directed to bear half of the stamp duty/penalty amount.

5. Before we enter into the merits of the review applications we may briefly indicate the facts.

6. The Corporation and Efcalon had entered into a MOU whereby rights have been created partly over immovable properties and partly over movables. Indisputedly, on the basis of the MOU Efcalon continue with the proceeding initiated by Corporation before the Debt Recovery Tribunal against the Borrower Company and after the certificate was issued, filed necessary applications for execution on behalf of Corporation in which the said property was sold. Efcalon contended that by reason of MOU, Efcalon is entitled to the proceeds thereof. The Corporation after resolving and receiving the entire sale proceeds refused to part with the said money and denied the obligation to pay the sale proceeds to Efcalon. Efcalon filed a suit before the High Court and in the said proceeding had taken out an application for summary judgment under Chapter XIII(A) of the Original Side Rules. In the said proceeding Efcalon relied upon the said MOU to establish its right to claim the sale proceeds which was the outcome of the proceeding continued by Efcalon on and on behalf of the corporation. At this stage, objection was raised by Corporation with regard to the admissibility of the said document as it was contended by the Corporation that unless proper stamp duty is paid on the said instrument, the said document cannot be taken on record and admitting to evidence for the purpose of adjudicating the claim of Efcalon. The learned Single Judge allowed such objection and impounded the document only to admit upon payment of stamp duty and penalty. This has resulted in an appeal in which the order under review was passed.

7. The Corporation was aggrieved by the said order and preferred a Special Leave Petition as mentioned above in which the Hon’ble Supreme court passed the following order which is stated below:

“Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner - West Bengal Financial Corporation seeks permission to withdraw the present special leave petition and states that the petitioner will made a review application/petition insofar as it has been directed that they shall bear half of the stamp duty/penalty amount.

In view of the statement made, the special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file a review application/petition.

The petitioner, if required and necessary, will be entitled to the impugned judgment after disposal of the review application/petition, only to the extent it has b