K. J. SHETTY, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is a reference application under S. 57 of the Stamp Act.

( 2 ) THE Board of Revenue as the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority was of opinion that the document dated Dec. , 16, 1975, is chargeable to duty under Art. 6 of the Sch. I B. The question before us is whether the document is such that it could fall under Art. 6 or under Art. 5 (c) of Schedule I-B.

( 3 ) THE deed has some background. It has been referred to in the preamble of the deed. It states that it is an inter se agreement between Willard India Limited (Company) and five other financial institutions, which are : IFCI, PICUP, NGB, FNCB and ICICI. It refers to diverse loan agreements executed by the Company with the aforesaid financial institutions. It is not disputed that on May, 31, 1974, the Company deposited with IFCI the title deed and other relatable documents of its is moveable properties, situate at Sikandarabad Industrial Estate in Bulandshahr district (State of Uttar Pradesh ). IFCI received the title deeds not only as security for its loan advanced to the Company but also as an agent of the other four financial institutions. It was evidently a joint security.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER the question arose as to how the said financial institutions should arrange their inter se rights over the joint securities. That would be clear from the resolution of the Company dated May 29, 1974. Pursuant to the resolution the document in question was executed and it was registered at Delhi with the Stamp Duty of Rs. 21. 50. The adjudication in regard to the proper stamp duty payable was made by the Collector under S. 31 of the Act and a certificate was issued under S. 32 to the effect that the full stamp duty of Rs. 21. 50 has been paid.

( 5 ) A copy of the document was received by District Registrar, Bulandshar. It was filed under S. 66 (3) of the Registration Act in his file book No. 1, Volume 7. In the course of the departmental auditing, it was found that higher duty is leviable in regard to the said document and the deficiency of the stamp duty was assessed at Rs. 1,16,178. 50. The audit party was of the opinion that the document falls under Art. 6 (1) of Sch. I-B. that was also the opinion of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.

( 6 ) WE have heard learned counsel on both sides and also perused the terms of the document. The document is no more than an agreement relating to inter se rights of the financial institutions in regard to the joint securities already furnished. It is not a memorandum by which document of title has been deposited for the purpose of creating equitable mortgage in relation to properties. That equitable mortgage had already been created earlier. We do not think, therefore, that the document could be considered as an equitable mortgage falling under Art. 6. 6a. Art. 6 reads as follows :-"6. Agreement relating to deposit of title deeds, pawn or pledge, that is to say, any instrument evidencing an agreement relating to. . . . . (1) the deposit of title deeds of instruments constituting or being evidence of the title to any property whatever (other than a marketable security); or (2) the pawn or pledge of movable property, where such deposit, pawn or pledge has been made by way of security for the repayment of money advanced or to be advanced by way of loan or an existing or future debt. "

( 7 ) THE learned Standing Counsel urged that the agreement in question relates to deposit of title deeds even though it does not by itself evidence the deposit of title deeds. We do not think that mere reference to an earlier deed by which the title deeds have been deposited, would be sufficient to attract Art. 6.

( 8 ) ALMOST a similar question arose for consideration in Murugharajendra Co. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, AIR 1974 Kar 60, (FB ). There a company had deposited title deeds in the Bank in respect of its fixed assets. The Company wanted to borrow additional sum and so requested the Bank to advance the additional

Click Here to Read the rest of this document