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

1980 Supreme(MP) 52

J.P.BAJPAI
MUNNALAL – Appellant
Versus
JAGANNATH PRASAD – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.L.AGRAWAL, K.K.MANDAL

J. P. BAJPAI, J.

( 1 ) THE scheme behind the provisions of Section 36 of the Stamp Act appears to be that where a court trying any action happens to rule rightly or wrongly that a particular document in its opinion either did not require stamp or was sufficiently stamped and admits the document then its decision is final and not liable to be questioned at any stage of the suit or proceeding in any other manner except as provided by Section 61 of the Stamp Act. The reason behind this is that the provisions of the Stamp Act excluding unstamped or insufficiently stamped documents are not intended to put an end to or to create rights of the parties. They are primarily in the interest of Government revenue. Therefore, when once a document has passed the ordeal of an investigation and the Judge trying the action has applied his mind to the question of liability to stamp duty or insufficiency thereof, it was not thought proper to subject that aspect to further discussion and decision by superior courts at the appellate or revisional stage. According to the legislature, if there was enough to persuade the judge trying the suit to admit a document his decision was final. If, therefore, the







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top