Skip to main content

Karnataka Stamp Act: Courts Have No Discretion To Impose Lesser Penalty While Admitting Insufficiently Stamped Documents

In CIVIL APPEAL NO.11932 Of 2018, GANGAPPA AND ANR. vs FAKKIRAPPA before the Supreme Court, trial court in Karnataka had impounded agreements to sell filed by the plaintiffs with direction to the plaintiff to pay deficit duty and penalty of at the rate of 2 times but on appeal the High Court directed the courts below to levy the penalty at 10 times of the deficit duty as per judgment of Karnataka High Court in Digambar Warty and others vs. District Registrar, Bangalore Urban District and another.

The Supreme Court observed that there is no discretion vested with the authority impounding the document in the matter of collecting duty under Section 33 of the Act. It said that there is clear contradistinction between the power under Section 33 and that under Section 39.

The bench said that the object and purpose for such contradistinction in the provision and power is not far to seek. Section 33 applies to every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and every person in charge of a public office. Thus, Section 33 covers a host of authorities, persons before whom instruments are filed. The legislative scheme does not indicate any distinction between a court receiving an insufficiently stamped instrument in evidence and other authorities. All have to impose penalty of 10 times of the duty or deficit portion, if it exceeds rupees five. This provision is for purpose of maintaining a uniformity in imposing a fixed penalty of 10 times without adverting to any adjudicatory process regarding quantifying the quantum of penalty.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more