Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR FULL BENCH
S.K. Gangele, S.N. Aggarwal and Anil Sharma, JJ.
Gurunanak Medical and Surgical Agency
Vs.
Sitaram Shivhare
Civil Rev. No. 49 of 2009
Decided On: 28.02.2011
From the aforesaid rules, it is clear that the word use of revenue has been mentioned with the word and such stamps may be inscribed and the meaning of the aforesaid word could not mean that if the word for revenue has not been mentioned with the word stamp which has to be affixed on a promissory note, then the promissory note is inadmissible in evidence, because the purpose of the Stamp Act and Rules, is to secure revenue for State..... The aforesaid stamps have to be used for the purpose of payment of revenue on a promissory note and when a adhesive stamp of correct value is embossed on a promissory note, then certainly the promissory note is admissible in evidence.
It is clear that if there is any irregularity in the use of stamp, then on this ground the document could not be termed as invalid or could not be classified as inadmissible in evidence. 2000(1) MPJR 51 and 2011(1) MPWN III held not good law. (2008)4 SCC 30 followed. 1972 MPLJ 616 referred to. [Paras 11, 13 & 14
(2) Words and Phrases -- word may used in R.17 of M.P. Stamp Rules, 1942 -- not the word of compulsion -- implies a discretion in it -however, can also be obligatory in nature according to context. AIR 1964 SC 358 and AIR 1963 SC1618 followed. AIR 1978 Madras 412 confirmed. [Para 18
(3) Precedent -- decision of Larger Bench -- always binding on Smaller Benches -- however, matter may be referred to a Larger Bench in case of being disagreed with view of Division Bench. 2003(1) JLJ 105 relied on. [Paras 20 & 21
(4) Precedent -- decision of one Bench -- always binding on same type of another Bench --however, the latter Bench can refer the matter to Larger Bench in case of being disagreed with view of earlier Bench. 2003(1) JLJ 105 relied on. [Paras 20 & 21
(5) Interpretation of Statutes -- literal interpretation of any word –if gives rise to anomaly or absurdity -- should be avoided. (2007) 10 SCC 528 followed. [Para 15
¼1½ LVkai fu;e] 1942 ¼e-iz-½ & fu- 3 ¼2½ rFkk 5 && LVkai mica/k && iz;kstu jkT; ds fy, jktLo lqfuf‘pr djuk gS && lgh ewY; dk vklatd LVkai && opui= ij jktLo ds lank; ds fy, iz;qDr gksrk gS && lk{; esa xzkg~; gS && bls cukus esa fdlh vfu;ferrk ek= ls lk{; esa vxzkg~; ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
iwoksZDr fu;eksa ls] ;g Li"V gS fd ‘‘kCn ^jktLo dk iz;ksx* dk mYys[k ‘‘kCn ^rFkk ,sls LVkai varfyZf[kr fd, tk ldrs gSa* ds lkFk fd;k x;k gS rFkk iwoksZDr ‘‘kCn ls ;g vfHkizsr ugha gks ldrk Fkk fd ;fn ‘‘kCn ^jktLo ds fy,* dk mYys[k ‘‘kCn ^LVkai tks opui= ij fpidk;k tkuk gS* ds lkFk ugha fd;k x;k gks] rc opui= lk{; esa xzkg; ugha gS] D;ksafd LVkai vf/kfu;e rFkk fu;eksa dk iz;kstu jkT; ds fy, jktLo lqfuf‘pr djuk gSA ---------- iwoksZDr LVkai opui= ij jktLo ds lank; ds fy, iz;qDr fd, tkuk gksrs gSa rFkk tc lgh ewY; dk vklatd LVkai opui= ij leqn~Hk`r fd;k tkrk gS] rc fuf‘pr :i ls opui= lk{; esa xzkg~; gSA
;g Li"V gS fd ;fn LVkai ds iz;ksx esa dksbZ vfu;ferrk gS] rc bl vk/kkj ij nLrkost dks vfof/kekU; ugha dgk tk ldrk Fkk ;k lk{; esa vxzkg~; ds :i esa oxhZd`r ugha fd;k tk ldrk FkkA 2000¼1½ ,e ih ts vkj 51 rFkk 2011¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 111 ekU;fof/k vfHkfu/kkZfjr ughaA ¼2008½4 ,l lh lh 30 vuqlfjrA 1972 ,e ih ,y ts 616 fufnZ"VA
¼iSjk 11] 13 ,oa 14½
¼2½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; && e-iz- LVkai fu;e] 1942 ds fu- 17 esa iz;qDr ‘‘kCn ^ldrk* && ck/;rk dk ‘‘kCn ugha && blesa foosdkf/kdkj foof{kr && rFkkfi] lanHkZ ds vuqlkj izd`fr esa vkc)dj gks ldrk gSA , vkb vkj 1964 ,l lh 358 rFkk , vkb vkj 1963 ,l lh 1618 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1978 enzkl 412 iq"VA
¼iSjk 18½
¼3½ iwoZ U;k; && c`gRrj U;k;ihB dk fofu‘p; && lnSo y?kqrj U;k;ihBksa ij ck/;dj gS && rFkkfi] [kaM U;k;ihB dh jk; ls vlger gksus dh n‘kk esa c`gRrj U;k;ihB dks ekeyk funsf‘kr fd;k tk ldrk gSA 2003¼1½ ts ,y ts 105 voyafcrA
¼iSjk 20 ,oa 21½
¼4½ iwoZ U;k; && ,d U;k;ihB dk fofu‘p; && lnSo ml izdkj dh vU; U;k;ihB ij ck/;dj gS &&rFkkfi] i‘pkr~orhZ U;k;ihB iwoZorhZ U;k;ihB dh jk; ls vlger gksus dh n‘kk esa ekeyk c`gRrj U;k;ihB dks fufnZ"V dj ldrh gSA 2003¼1½ ts ,y ts 105 voyafcrA
¼iSjk 20 ,oa 21½
¼5½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && fdlh ‘‘kCn dk ‘kkfCnd fuoZpu && ;fn fo"kerk ;k vFkZghurk mRiUu djrk gS && blls cpk tkuk pkfg,A ¼2007½10 ,l lh 528 vuqlfjrA
¼iSjk 15½
S.K. Gangele, J.
1. On a reference by the learned Single Judge, Hon'ble the Chief Justice has constituted this Full Bench to answer the following reference:
(i) In view of two kinds of stamps described in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the M.P. Stamp Rules, 1942, whether special adhesive stamps may be treated as something in addition to adhesive stamps and not opposed or in contradistinction to adhesive stamp as required for promissory note?
(ii) Whether the word "may" in Rule 17 of M. P. Stamp Rules, 1942 is of permissive nature and not of mandatory nature?
(iii) Whether the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Ismail Khan v. Ram Prakash Verma: 2000 (2) MPLJ 104 : 2000(1) MPJR 51 that only adhesive stamps bearing inscription of "revenue" should be used on promissory note is not a good law in view of earlier Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ganpatsingh and Anr. v. Gurucharansingh and Anr.: AIR 1973 M.P. 3 : 1972 MPLJ 616
2. Facts arising out of the reference in short are that one M/s Gurunanak Medical and Surgical Agency filed a revision before this Court against the judgment and decree dated 2-9-2008 passed by the Court of First Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 47A/2007. By the aforesaid judgment and decree, the Lower Appellate Court decreed the suit of the Plaintiff and ordered recovery of Rs. 10,000/- with interest. The Plaintiff instituted a Suit against the Defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on the allegation that he had advanced a loan to the Defendant on 29-11-2000 with promise of repayment upto 29-5-2001 with interest at the rate of 1.30% per month. A receipt was executed by the Defendant to this effect, however, the repayment was not made. The Defendant denied the claim of the Plaintiff and pleaded that the Plaintiff obtained his signature fraudulently on the alleged receipt. The Defendant further pleaded that he did not borrow the amount and further raised an objection in the written statement about the admissibility of the pronote receipt on the ground that it was improperly stamped, hence, it is not admissible in evidence. The trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 31-8-2007 holding that the Plaintiff failed to prove his case. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, Plaintiff filed an appeal i.e. Civil Appeal No. 47A/2007, which was allowed by the Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 2-9-2008. The Lower Appellate Court decreed the suit with interest. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the Defendant filed a revision before this Court, which was registered as Civil Revision No. 49/2009.
3. The learned Counsel for revisionist before the learned Single Judge contended that Ex.P/1 is a promissory note with a special adhesive stamp without inscription of word 'revenue', hence, it is not admissible in evidence in evidence in accordance with law laid down by a Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ismail Khan v. Ram Prakash Verma: 2000 (2) MPLJ 104 : 2000 (1) MPJR 51. The learned Single Judge of this Court in Ismail Khan (supra) has held as under:
6. For the purpose of Sections 10, 74 and 75 of the Act, Madhya Pradesh Stamps Rules, 1942 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') have been enacted. Rule 5 provides that a promissory note or bill of exchange shall, except as provided by Section 11 or by Rules 13 and 17, be written on paper on which a stamp of proper value with or without the word "hundi" has been engraved or embossed. Thus, promissory note can be executed on a stamp paper of proper valuation. Rule 17 of the rules is reproduced below:
17. Adhesive stamp or stamps denoting duty of ten naye paise or five naye paise. - Except as otherwise provided by these rules, the adhesive stamps used to denote duty shall be the requisite number of stamps bearing the words "Twenty-five naye Paise" or Fifteen naye paise" or "ten naye paise" or "Five naye paise" and such stamps may be inscribed for use for reven
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
