Uttarakhand High Court
M/S Shriram City Union Finance ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 10 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
WPMS No. 2335 of 2021
M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited
..................Petitioner
Mr. Devang Dobhal, Adv. for the petitioner
-versus-
State of Uttarakhand and others
.........Respondents
Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for State
Sri S.K.Mishra, J.
Judgment
10.11.2021
1. Heard Mr. Devang Dobhal, learned counsel for the writ
applicant and Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing
Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
2. An application has been filed for condonation of delay,
but as per the stamp report, there is no delay.
3. Since, the order impugned has been passed by the
learned District Judge, Dehradun, at the threshold
before digital issuance of notice to the opposite party,
we consider it not expedient to issue notice to the
opposite party, especially when the matter is between
the Court and the petitioner, who was the decree holder
before the learned District Judge, Dehradun. It relates
to the payment of insufficient stamp duty on the
registered documents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
amount of stamp was to be affixed Rs. 100/- and
Registration fees of Rs. 50/- was also required.
However, by the time, the Execution case was filed. In
the year 2021, the Department of Stamps &
Registration published a new chart whereby stamp duty
is enhanced to 4% where the amount or value of the
property to which award relates does not exceed Rs.
1000/- and if it exceeds to Rs. 1,000/- for every
additional or part thereof, the additional stamp duty of
Rs. 10/- is to be paid, and where the subject matter of
the award is incapable of valuation, duty payable is 4%
of Rs. 1000/-. It is not disputed that on the date of
filing of the document before the authority, having
jurisdiction to accept the document as evidence to act
upon, the revised date was applicable. So, the learned
District Judge was correct in holding that the revised
date was applicable and the document was insufficient
for stamp duty, but the second stage of dismissing the
Execution case is prima facie illegal.
5. In view of Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899
which reads as follows:-
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 1 [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) 2 [the 3 [State Government]] may determine
what offices shall be deemed to be public offices;
and
(b) 4 [the 3 [State Government]] may determine
who shall be deemed to be persons in charge of
public offices
6. Since, the document found to be insufficient stamp
then it was the duty of the Court to impound the
document and proceed according to the provisions of
Section 33 of the aforesaid Act, and calculate the stamp
duty and, thereafter, afford a reasonable opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner.
7. In that view of the matter, the writ application is
disposed of by setting-aside the order passed by the
learned District Judge, Dehradun and the matter is
remanded back and the Execution application is
restored to file in its original number.
8. The learned District Judge shall act upon on the
production of certified copy of this order and shall pass
appropriate order under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899. If the petitioner fails to deposit the re-
assessed stamp duty, then the application shall be
dismissed. The application shall be proceeded according
to Section 33, 35 and 38 of the Indian Stamp Act,
1899.
9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(S.K.Mishra)
Judge
A/-
