CM(M) 932/2022

Page 1 of 13

$~52

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M) 932/2022 & CM APPL. 39695/2022, CM APPL.

39696/2022

RCI INDUSTRIES AND TECHNOLOGIES LTD..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Mohit Chaudhary and Ms.

Mahima Ahuja, Advs.

versus

ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY (NCLT-III) & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Adv.

with Ms Vatsala Rai, Adv. for Respondent 2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

%

12.09.2022

1.

The prayer in this petition, under Articled 227 of the

Constitution of India, is essentially to guide the learned National

Company Law Tribunal (“the learned NCLT”) on how to adjudicate

cases pending before it.

2.

Such a prayer, in my view, is completely untenable in law and

an attempt at even countenancing such a prayer would amount to

serious judicial overreach.

3.

The proceedings emanate from a petition under Section 9 of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), instituted by the Standard

Chartered Singapore (SCS) before the learned NCLT. It appears that,

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003636

CM(M) 932/2022

Page 2 of 13

on the basis of transactions covered by invoices issued between 28^th

September 2018 and 6^th January 2019, SCS contended that the

petitioner owed, to it, an amount of ₹ 22 crores. In view of the alleged

default of the petitioner in liquidating the said debt, SCS apparently

invoked the provisions of the IBC.

4.

The petitioner has sought to contend, before the learned NCLT,

that the documents cited by SCS in its support could not be relied

upon in view of Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899¹.

1 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 purpose every such person shall examine every instrument so chargeable and so

produced or coming before him, in order to ascertain whether it is stamped with a stamp of the

value and description required by the law in force in India when such instrument was executed or

first executed:

Provided that—

(a)

nothing herein contained shall be deemed to require any Magistrate of Judge of

a Criminal Court to examine or impound, if he does not think fit so to do, any instrument

coming before him in the course of any proceeding other than a proceeding under Chapter

XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1989);

(b)

in the case of a Judge of a High Court, the duty of examining and impounding

any instrument under this section may be delegated to such officer as the Court appoints

in this behalf.

(3) For the purposes of this section, in cases of doubt, —

(a)

the State Government may determine what offices shall be deemed to be public

offices; and

(b)

the State Government may determine who shall be deemed to be persons in

charge of public offices.

35.

Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc.— No instrument

chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or

consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated

by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped :

Provided that—

(a)

any such instrument shall be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with

which the same is chargeable, or, in the case of any instrument insufficiently stamped, of

the amount required to make up such duty, together with a penalty of five rupees, or,

when ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds five

rupee