PEOPLES BANK VS. OCEAN QUEEN MARINE (PVT) LTD AND OTHERS

PEOPLES BANK
VS.
OCEAN QUEEN MARINE (PVT) LTD AND OTHERS

SUPREME COURT,
EVA WANASUNDARA, PC J.,
SISIRA DE ABREW. J,
ANIL GOONARATNE. J,
SC (CHC) 29/2009,
SC (HC) LA 7/2009,
HC COLOMBO (HC CIVIL) 17/2004 (01),
OCTOBER 19, 2015

Stamp Duty Act, 43 of 1982 Section 69 - Regulations framed thereunder -Guarantee bond not property stamped - Cannot be produced in evidence ? Decision in Ceylease case - Are the principles decided in Ceylease case overruled by the Seylan Bank case - Can the Supreme Court act in Revision and set aside its own order? - Is the Supreme Court the Court of last resort and there is a finality in the Judgment?

In the action instituted by the Plaintiff Peoples Bank against the Respondent Directors the guarantors, the High Court on 24.01.2006 did not grant relief against the 2nd to 6th Respondents, on the basis that the guarantee. Bond was not duly stamped and therefore cannot be accepted in evidence. Against this judgment the Plaintiff Peoples Bank appealed contending that the position as regards the stamping of the guarantee Bond was wrong. While the application was pending in the Supreme Court, judgment in Ceylease case was pronounced. Thereafter the Petitioner Bank informed Court that in view of the judgment in Ceylease case, the Petitioner Bank would not proceed with the application. The Special Leave to 3ppeal was dismissed After the judgment in Ceylease case, the Supreme Court declared judgment In the Seylan Bank case - thereafter the Petitioner relying on the observations in Seylan Bank case filed the instant Revision application to set aside the judgment entered by the High Court on 24.01.2006.

The Petitioner contended that, the dismissing of action of the Petitioner against the guarantors, 2nd to 6th Respondents is contrary to law. The guarantee bond was properly stamped, and the Commercial High Court misdirected itself in rejecting the guarantee Bond, and that the 2nd - 6th Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the Petitioner Bank the money due - relying on the Seylan Bank Case.

Held:

(1) Judicial decision In the Ceylease case has been decided by a three judge bench of the Supreme Court and judicial decision in the Seylan Bank case has also been decided by a three judge bench of the Supreme Court. Therefore the judicial decision in the Seylan Bank case could not overrule the judicial decision in the Ceylease case.

Per Sisira de Abrew, J.

"It is seen that the judgment in the Seylan Bank case itself clearly states that the decision in the Ceylease case has no application to that case (Seylan Bank case) as the facts are different. The judgment states that the Ceylease case is distinguishable as the finance company in that case had entered into a bond regarding the security of the property - vehicle. Therefore it appears that the principles enunciated in the Ceylease case have not been taken away by the decision in the Seylan Bank case."

(2) If the Stamp Duty Act or the regulations made thereunder or any other law specifies that a document should be stamped, such a document cannot be produced in evidence without being properly stamped In the instant case the guarantee bond is not properly stamped.

Held further;

(3) The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to act in revision of cases decided by itself. The Supreme Court is a Court of last resort in appeal and there is finality in its judgment whether it is right or wrong. That is the policy of the law and the purpose of Chapter XV of the Constitution

(4) When the Supreme Court has decided a matter, the matter is at an end and there is no occasion for other judges to be called upon to review or revise a matter. The Supreme Court is a creature of statute and its powers are statutory, The Court has no statutory jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution or by any other law to rehear, review, alter or vary its decision.