K. S. Hegde, C. J , Khanna, and Tatachari J J.

( 1 ) THIS is a reference under section 57 (1) (b) of the Indian Stamp Act (to be hereinafter REFERRED TO as the Act)

( 2 ) THE letter of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Delhi, referring this case to this Court reads as follows :

"the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, respectfully showeth: 1 (a) That on 11th September, 1964 Messrs Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf), Delhi, executed an agreement in favour of the Institute of Medicines and Medical Research, Delhi. A copy of the agreement is submitted herewith as annexure A. (b) That on the same date Messrs Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf), Delhi executed another agreement in favour of Messrs Hamdard National foundations (India), Delhi. A copy orf this agreement is submitted herewith as annexure B. 2. That on 15th September, 1964 both the agreements were presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar (1), Delhi. They had both been executed by the respondent on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 2. 00 each. 3. That the Sub-Registrar, impounded the two documents U/s 33 of the Indian Stamp Act. He was of the opinion that these documentswere chargeable under section 25 (b) read with Article 15 Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act with a higher rate of duty and as such the agreement annexure A was liable to be stamped with a stamp of the value of Rs. 1,200. 00 and that the agreement annexure B required a stamp of the value of Rs. 14,400. 00 on the basis of the minimum loyalties of Rs. 6,000. 00 and Rs. 72,00. 00 per annum respectively as provided in these agreements. The matter was forwarded by him to the Collector of the Stamps under section 38 (2) of the Stamp Act. The Sub-Registrar also desired it to be taken into consideration if the two agreements did not amount to a sale of trade rights for the consideration of the royalties, 4. That proceedings Under Section 40 of the Stamp Act were accordingly started in the case of the two agreements and notices were issued to the respondent. 5. That the Collector of Stampseing unable to resolve the doubt regarding the chargeability of these documents with duty, made a reference to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Sub-Section (2) of section 56 of the Stamp Act, 1889, on the following two points. (i) Whether the documents were covered by Section 25 ? If whether they were chargeable under Article 15 Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 ? (ii) Whether the documents are bonds as defined in Section 2 sub-section (5) of the Indian Stamp Act ? or are simple agreements covered by Article 5 sub-clause (c) of Schedule 1-A. A copy of. the reference order of the Collector is submitted herewith as annexure C. A 6. That the matter was very carefully considered by your petitioner as the Chief Controlling Revenue Ruthority. The documents annexures A and B are covered by section 25 as they operate to secure the payment of certain sums periodically and the stamp duty on the same as envisaged in section 25 has to be calculated under Article 15 of Schedule 1-A, because documents of this nature are covered by the clause "not being otherwise provided for by the Act. " as appearing in this Article. The Stamp. Act, it is submitted contains no other article dealing with a document covered by section 25 and this section in clear terms provides for the ascertainment of the amount which is to be taken into account for purposes of assessment of the Stamp Duties. (b) That since the definition of bond contained in section 2 (5) is not exhaustive, the document though not strictly covered by this definition could also be treated as a bond for the purposes of the Stamp Act. (c) That in the submission of your petitioner the agreements A and B are thus covered by section 25 read with Article 15 of Schedule 1-A. 7. That the matter, however, involves important points of law, it is considered to be desirable and proper by your petitioner to state the case and refer the same to this Hon ble Court under the provisions of Section 57 (1)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document