SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(P&H) 1421

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.
Malaysian Airlines Systems Bhd - Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Stic Travels (P) Ltd. - Respondent
I.A. No. 4 in Arbitration Petition No. 18 of 2000.
Decided On : 21 November, 2000

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva, and Mr. M. Wadhwani, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Ms. Jasmine Tarapore, Mr. R.K. Chadha, MS. Meenakshi Singh and Mr. Janendra Lal, Advocates.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the procedure for collection of stamp duty and penalty under the Stamp Act, 1899 based on the timing of the production of unstamped documents as evidence.

Headnote:

Stamp Act - Impounding of Power of Attorney - Sections 3(c), 11, 18, 32, 42 - The court discussed the interpretation of the mentioned sections of the Stamp Act, 1899 in relation to the impounding of a power of attorney executed outside India and presented in India for use in proceedings in the Supreme Court. The court also highlighted the procedure for collection of stamp duty and penalty based on the timing of the production of the unstamped document as evidence.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a question of impounding a power of attorney executed outside India and presented in India for use in proceedings in the Supreme Court. The court had previously passed an order impounding the power of attorney and levying maximum penalty along with stamp duty.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the point raised by the respondent regarding the time limit for production of the unstamped document as evidence was not tenable. It held that the procedure for collection of stamp duty without impounding and penalty applied if the document was produced within three months of execution, but if produced beyond three months, the document could be impounded and stamp duty and penalty levied.

Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of Sections 3(c), 11, 18, 32, and 42 of the Stamp Act, 1899 in relation to the impounding of a power of attorney executed outside India and presented in India for use in proceedings in the Supreme Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Stamp Act, specifically the procedure for collection of stamp duty and penalty based on the timing of the production of the unstamped document as evidence.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the matter, directing the return of the original power of attorney to the petitioner and certifying the endorsement made under Section 42(1) of the Indian Stamp Act.

ORDER

M. Jagannadha Rao, J. - This matter relates to a question of impounding a power of attorney executed outside India and presented in India for use in proceedings in the Supreme Court. The question turns upon interpretation of Sections 3(c), 11, 18, 32 and 42 of the Stamp Act, 1899.

2. An order was passed on the last occasion on 3.11.2000, impounding the Power of Attorney dated 3.11.2000 and levying maximum penalty along with stamp duty and directing deposit of a sum of Rs. 110/- in the treasury. Directions were also issued to the treasury to give the receipted challan on the same day. That order reads as follows :-

"This application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

At the time of hearing of this application learned counsel for the respondent has raised an objection that the general power of attorney dated 15.12.1997 issued by the petitioner company of Malaysia in favour of Mr. Noor Amiruddin Bin Mohd. Nardin, Senior Vice President/General Manager, South Asian Region executed at Kualalumpur has not been properly stamped according to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and that, therefore, it is not admissible in India. The present petition under Section 11 is signed by the said power of attorney holder.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that, assuming the said plea is tenable, the petitioner has no objection to make good the required stamp duty and penalty.

Under Section 3(c) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, stamp duty is payable on every instrument (other than a bill of exchange or promissory note) mentioned in the Schedule, which, not having been previously executed by any person, is executed out of India on or after that day, relates to any property or to any matter or thing done or to be done in India and is received in India. As the document, though executed outside India, is sought to be used in India, for filing the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the power of attorney is liable to stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act.

Under Article 48 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act, omitting clause (d) or (e) of Article 48 which refer to more than one person being authorised under the power of attorney and also omitting clause (f) which deals with power to sell immovable property, the maximum fee otherwise payable for a power of attorney is Rs. 10/-, according to counsel on both sides.

I, therefore, impound the document under section 33 of the Act, direct the petitioner to deposit stamp duty worth Rs. 10/- plus the maximum penalty of ten times as provided in section 40(1)(b). The total stamp duty and penalty liable to be deposited will be Rs. 10/- x 11 = Rs. 110/-. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to put his stamp on the challan to be produced by the petitioners counsel. Thereafter, the petitioner will deposit Rs. 110/- in the Treasury and produce the receipted challan back with the seal or endorsement of the treasury. Thereafter the Registrar (Judicial) will make an endorsement that the document was impounded by the Court and that the stamp duty and penalty has been paid. Then the document will be placed before Court.

For the above purpose, the original power of attorney shall be produced before the Registrar (Judicial) for completing the above formalities.

The Treasury Officer is directed to give the receipted challan on the same date on which it is presented, without raising any further objection.

Call the matter on 17.11.2000 in Chambers at 1.30 P.M. If the stamp duty is paid aforesaid, then this Court will be able to make an endorsement as per Section 42(1) of the Stamp Act admitting the instrument in evidence".

3. The penalty and stamp duty have since been paid and the Original document dated 15.12.1997 is produced in this Court and also contains the endorsement of the Registrar of this Court to the following effect :

"This document was impounded by this Hon. Court under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top