Sneh Farms and Agro Products Ltd. , Indore vs Pankaj Agrawal

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2014 Supreme(MP) 370

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
S.C. Sharma, J.
Sneh Farms and Agro Products Ltd., Indore and another v. Pankaj Agrawal and another
Writ Petition No.5625 of 2013 (Indore) : against order dated 16.3.2012, passed by 21st Additional District Judge, Indore in
Civil Suit No.190A of 2011 ; Decided on 15.7.2014.

Headnote:Stamp Act, 1899 -- Ss.33 and 35 -- object of -- suit for declaration and injunction -- based on agreement -- document not sufficiently stamped -- application by defendant for impounding such document -- document should be impounded -- rejection of application is erroneous -- application allowed by High Court.
       Held : Section 33 categorically states that any person having authority to receive an evidence is duty bound to impound a document when it is insufficiently stamped.
       This Court is of the considered opinion that it is mandatory for an authority to impound a document produced before him or which comes before him in the performance of his functions. AIR 2000 All. 344 relied on. AIR 2008 SC 1640 and (2009)2 SCC 532 followed. AIR 1989 Ker. 248, AIR 1961 SC 787 and AIR 1997 Ker. 345 distinguished.
       The application preferred by the present petitioner under section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 stands allowed and the learned trial Judge is directed to proceed further in accordance with law by impounding the documents and thereafter by sending it to the Collector of Stamps for adjudication.
        LVkai vf/kfu;e] 1899 && /kkjk 33 rFkk 35 && dk mn~ns’; && ?kks”k.kk rFkk O;kns’k ds fy, okn djkj ij vk/kkfjr && nLrkost i;kZIRk LVkafir ugha && izfroknh }kjk ,sls nLrkost dks ifjc) fd, tkus ds fy, vkosnu && nLrkost ifjc) fd;k tkuk pkfg, && vkosnu vLohd`r fd;k tkuk =qfViw.kZ gS&&mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vkosnu eatwj fd;k x;kA
       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % /kkjk 33 lqLi”Vr% dfFkr djrk gS fd dksbZ O;fDr tks lk{; ysus dk izkf/kdkj j[krk gS og nLrkost dks ifjc) fd, tkus ds fy, drZO; }kjk vkc) gS tc ;g vi;kZIr LVkafir gksA
       bLk U;k;ky; dh lqfopkfjr jk; gS fd izkf/kdkjh dks mlds le{k nLrkost dks ;k vius d`R;ksa ds ikyu es tks mlds le{k vkrk gS mls ifjc) fd;k tkuk vkKkid gSA , vkb vkj 2000 byk- 344 voyafcrA , vkb vkj 2008 ,l lh 1640 rFkk ¼2009½2 ,l lh lh 532 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1989 dsjy 248] , vkb vkj 1961 ,l lh 787 rFkk , vkb vkj 1997 dsjy 345 izHksfnrA
       Hkkjrh; LVkai vf/kfu;e] 1899 dh /kkjk 33 ds v/khu orZeku ;kph }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k vkosnu T;ks&dk&Rksa eatwj fd;k tkrk gS] vkSj fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;k/kh’k dk funsZ’k fn;k tkrk gS fd fof/k ds vuqlkj nLrkost dks ifjc) dj vkSj rRi’pkr~ vf/kfu;e ds fy, LVkia dyDVj dks Hkstdj vfxze dk;Zokgh dh tk,A

ORDER

1. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 16.3.2012, passed by 21st Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No.19-A/2011 (Pankaj Agrawal v. Shri Shyam Kuril and two others). The learned Additional District Judge has dismissed the application preferred under section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 filed by the present petitioner (defendant No.2).

2. Facts of the case reveal that plaintiff Pankaj Agrawal-respondent No.2 in the present writ petition, has filed a suit for grant of declaration and injunction under Order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as stated in the plaint, based upon an agreement dated 15.4.2011. The petitioner has preferred an application under section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 stating therein that the document dated 15.4.2011 has not been properly stamped and, therefore, in the light of the statutory provisions as contained under section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the same be impounded and sent to the Collector of Stamps for adjudication. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments on the application preferred by the defendants, has dismissed the application. The present writ petition is arising out of aforesaid order passed by the trial Court dated 16.3.2012.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and he has also placed reliance upon the judgment delivered in the case of Smt. Dilawati Devi v. Commissioner, Varanasi, reported in AIR 2000 All. 344, Government of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Smt. P. Laxmi Devi, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1640, and in the case of Avinash Kumar Chouhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra, reported in (2009)2 SCC 532, and contention of the learned counsel is that a document the moment it is produced before an authority, as mentioned in section 33, if it is not duly stamped, the authority has to impound the same.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has argued before this Court that by virtue of statutory provisions as contained under section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the stamp duty is required to be paid only when a document is tendered in evidence. He has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Kerala High Court in the case of Varghese v. State of Kerala and others, reported in AIR 1989 Kerala 248. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Government of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan, reported in AIR 1961 SC 787. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra (supra), and lastly he has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Kerala High Court in the case of Uthuppan Abraham v. State of Kerala and others, reported in AIR 1997 Kerala 345.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

6. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff Pankaj Agrawal has filed a civil suit claiming declaration and injunction based upon a document dated 15.4.2011. It is also an admitted fact, not disputed by the parties, that the document is not sufficiently stamped. An application was preferred under section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 by the defendants (petitioners) for impounding the same. The trial Court has dismissed the application by an order dated 16.3.2012.

7. The statutory provisions as contained in sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 reads as under :

33. Examination and impounding of instruments. -- (1) Every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence and every person in charge of a public office, except an officer of police, before whom any instrument, chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions shall if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same.

(2) For that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(MP) 370

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURTS.C. Sharma, J.Sneh Farms and Agro Products Ltd., Indore and another v. Pankaj Agrawal and anotherWrit Petition No.5625 of 2013 (Indore) : against order dated 16.3.2012, passed by 21st Additional District Judge, Indore inCivil Suit No.190A of 2011 ; Decided on 15.7.2014.