//
you're reading...
legal issues

Stamp Act, 1899 – ss. 33 and 35 and Article 23 of Schedule 1A (as substituted by M.P. Act No. 19 of 1989) — Execution of sale deed – Execution whereof statutorily barred – Suit by the vendee for recovery of consideration amount – Reliance on the conveyance deed which was not registered – Document impounded, being not duly stamped – Held: Provision of ss. 33 and 35 are applicable, even if the unregistered document sought to be admitted in evidence is for collateral purpose – The purpose for which reliance is placed on the document is not relevant for applicability of the provisions – s. 35 rules out applicability of s. 49 of Registration Act – On facts, the document rightly impounded – Registration Act, 1908 – s. 49. Respondent-a member of Scheduled Tribe sold his immovable property to appellant. Appellant paid the consideration amount for the same, and respondent gave the possession of the property to the appellant. However, the permission for such transfer was not granted. Appellant filed a suit for recovery of the consideration amount. He relied on the agreement which was sought to be registered as a sale deed. As the document was not duly stamped, the court impounded the same. The challenge against the order was not entertained by High Court. In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that since the unregistered sale deed was sought to be put in evidence only for the purpose of recovery of the consideration amount i.e. for collateral purpose, the provisions of ss. 33 and 35 of Stamp Act, shall not be attracted. . =Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD:1.1. The Parliament has, in Section 35 of Stamp Act, used the words “for any purpose whatsoever”. Thus, the purpose for which a document is sought to be admitted in evidence or the extent thereof would not be a relevant factor for not invoking the provision. The land, in the instant case, is situated in a Scheduled Area. Execution of a deed of conveyance in respect of the land situated in the scheduled area is statutorily barred. All transactions can be effected only upon obtaining the permission of the Collector in terms of the provisions of Section 165 (6) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959. An instrument was executed. By reason of such an instrument not only the entire amount of consideration was paid but possession of the property had also been transferred. [Paras 12, 13 and 14] [953-C-F] 1.2. By reason of the explanation appended to Article 23 of Schedule IA of the Stamp Act as inserted by M.P. Act 19 of 1989 a legal fiction has been created. Although ordinarily an agreement to sell would not be subject to payment of stamp duty which is payable on a sale deed, but having regard to the purpose and object it seeks to achieve the legislature thought it necessary to levy stamp duty on an instrument whereby possession has been transferred. [Para 15] [954-C-D] 1.3. The possession of the property had been delivered in favour of the appellant. He has, thus, been exercising some right in or over the land in question. Although the agreement was not registered, but registration of the document has nothing to do with the validity thereof as provided for under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. In the instant case, by reason of the statutory interdict, no transfer at all is permissible. Even transfer of possession is also not permissible. [Paras 16 and 19] [954-E-F] Pandey Oraon v. Ram Chander Sahu 1992 Supp (2) SCC 77 and Amrendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati and Ors. 2004 (10) SCC 65, referred to. 1.4. Section 33 of Stamp Act casts a statutory obligation on all the authorities to impound a document. The court being an authority to receive a document in evidence is bound to give effect thereto. The unregistered deed of sale was an instrument which required payment of the stamp duty applicable to a deed of conveyance. Adequate stamp duty admittedly was not paid. The court, therefore, was empowered to pass an order in terms of Section 35 of Stamp Act. [Paras 17 and 18] [954-F-H] 1.5. It is not correct to say that the document was admissible for collateral purpose. The Registration Act, 1908 provides for such a contingency in terms of the proviso appended to Section 49 thereof. Section 35 of Stamp Act, however, rules out applicability of such provision as it is categorically provided therein that a document of this nature shall not be admitted for any purpose whatsoever. If all purposes for which the document is sought to be brought in evidence are excluded, the document would not be admissible for collateral purposes. [Paras 19, 20 and 21] [955-A-G-D-E] Ram Rattan v. Parmananad AIR 1946 PC 51, relied on. Bondar Singh v. Nihal Singh 2003 (4) SCC 161, distinguished. Bhaskarabhotla Padmanabhaiah and Ors. v. B. Lakshminarayana and Ors. AIR 1962 A.P. 132; Sanjeeva Reddi v. Johanputra Reddi AIR 1972 A.P. 373; T. Bhaskar Rao v. T. Gabriel and Ors. AIR 1981 A.P. 175; Firm Chuni Lal Tukki Mal v. Firm Mukat Lal Ram Chanda and Ors. AIR 1965 All. 164 and Chandra Sekhar Misra v. Gobinda Chandra Das AIR 1966 Ori. 18, referred to. Case Law Reference: 2003 (4) SCC 161 Distinguished. Para 19 1992 Supp (2) SCC 77 Referred to. Para 19 2004 (10) SCC 65 Referred to. Para 19 AIR 1946 PC 51 Relied on. Para 22 AIR 1962 A.P. 132 Referred to. Para 22 AIR 1972 A.P. 373 Referred to. Para 22 AIR 1981 A.P. 175 Referred to. Para 22 AIR 1965 All. 164 Referred to. Para 22 AIR 1966 Ors. 18 Referred to. Para 22 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7350 of 2008. From the Judgment and final Order dated 27.02.2007 of the High Court of Chattisgarh in at Bilaspur in W.P. No. 251/2007. A.K. Bajpai, M.F. Khan, Goodwill Indeevar for the Appellant. Suhail Dutt, Ram Gupta, Jagit Singh Chhavra and Ravin Rao for the Respondent =, , , 2009(1 )SCALE80 ,

REPORTABLE

English: The supreme court of india. Taken abo...

Image via Wikipedia

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7350 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8651 of 2007)

Avinash Kumar Chauhan ….
Appellant
Versus
Vijay Krishna Mishra …. Respondent

JUDGMENT
S.B. SINHA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Interpretation of Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899

(for short `the Act’) calls for our consideration in this appeal which arises

out of a judgment and order dated 27th February, 2007 passed by a learned

1
Single Judge of the High Court of Chattisgarh at Bilaspur dismissing a

petition filed by the appellant herein under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India against the orders dated 14th November, 2006 and 9th January, 2007

passed in Civil Suit No.1-B/2006 by the Additional District Judge,

Gariaband, Raipur.

3. The undisputed fact of the matter is that the respondent herein, who is

said to be a member of the Scheduled Tribe intended to transfer a house and

land admeasuring 10150 sq. ft. situated at Village Gariyaband, District

Raipur. A sum of Rs.2,70,000/- fixed by way of consideration towards the

aforementioned transfer was paid to the respondent by the appellant.

Possession of the said property had also been delivered.

4. Indisputably for the purpose of effecting transfer of the said land,

permission of the Collector was required to be obtained in terms of Section

165 (6) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, which was applied for but

rejected.
2
5. Appellant herein filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,70,000/-. In support

of his case, the agreement dated 4th August, 2003 which was sought to be

registered as a sale-deed has been relied upon.

The same was directed to be impounded by an order dated 9th January,

2007, stating :-

” Under the Section 35(a) of the Stamp Act
there is a provision that for any such instrument or
bill of exchange or promissory note, subject to all
just exceptions, will be admitted in evidence on
payment of the duty with which the same is
chargeable or, in the case of an 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 rupees, of a sum equal to ten times such duty
or portion.

In the matter the agreement of sell produced
is valued Rs.2,70,000/- which as per Article 23 of
Indian Stamp Act and as per Schedule 5, on the
said amount stamp duty of 5.6% is leviable and the
7.5% of Rs.2,70,000/- comes to Rs.20,250/-. In
the agreement to sell Rs.60/- is mentioned as
stamp which means reducing the Rs.20,250 -
Rs.60 = Rs.20,190 is less stamp duty paid, 10
times penalty of which will be leviable as per
Section 35 of the Stamp Act means Rs.201900/-
stamp duty will be leviable. In this regard relevant
case law is `Kapur Constructions vs. Lita Nagraj
and Ors.,’ AIR 2005 Karnataka 032. The plaintiff
3
has paid Rs.20,850/- in the C.C.D. so the rest of
the amount of Rs.181050 be deposited within the
next date of hearing and the Opposite Party shall
also file its counter reply by the next date of
hearing.”
6. As noticed hereinbefore the High Court by reason of the impugned

judgment refused to interfere with the said order.

7. Mr. A.K. Bajpai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

would submit that having regard to the fact that the said unregistered deed

of sale was sought to be put in evidence not for the purpose of enforcement

of the contract but only for the purpose of recovery of the amount of

consideration, which indisputably has been paid to the respondent and such

a purpose, it was urged, being a collateral one, the provisions of Sections 33

and 35 of the Act shall not be attracted.

Reliance in this behalf has been placed on the proviso appended to

Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act as also on the decision of this

Court in Bondar Singh v. Nihal Singh, [ (2003) 4 SCC 161 ],
4
8. Mr. Suhail Dutt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent, on the other hand, would support the impugned judgment.

9. The Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to
Stamps.
“Conveyance” has been defined in Section 2(10) to mean :-
” “conveyance” includes a conveyance on sale
and every instrument by which property, whether
moveable or immoveable, is transferred inter vivos
and which is not otherwise specifically provided
for by Schedule I ;”
“Receipt” has been defined in section 2(23) of the Act to mean :-
” “receipt” includes any note, memorandum
or writing-
(a) whereby any money, or any bill of exchange,
cheque or promissory note is acknowledged to
have been received, or
(b) whereby any other moveable property is
acknowledged to have been received in
satisfaction of a debt, or
(c) whereby any debt or demand, or any part of a
debt or demand, is acknowledged to have been

5
satisfied or discharged, or
(d) which signifies or imports any such
acknowledgement ;
and whether the same is or is not signed with the
name of any person.”

“Stamp” has been defined in Section 2(26) to mean :-

” “Stamp” means any mark, seal or
endorsement by any agency or person duly
authorised by the State Government, and includes
an adhesive or impressed stamp, for the purposes
of duty chargeable under this Act.”

10. Chapter II of the Act provides for stamp-duties.

Section 3, which is the charging Section reads as under :-
“3. Instruments chargeable with duty. – Subject to
the provisions of this Act and the exemptions
contained in Schedule I, the following instruments
shall be chargeable with duty of the amount
indicated in that Schedule as the proper duty
therefor, respectively, that is to say-
(a) every instrument mentioned in that
Schedule which, not having been previously

6
executed by any person, is executed in India
on or after the first day of July, 1899;

(b) every bill of exchange payable otherwise
than on demand or promissory note drawn
or made out of India on or after that day and
accepted or paid, or resented for acceptance
or payment, or endorsed, transferred or
otherwise negotiated, in India; and

(c) every instrument (other than a bill of
exchange or promissory note) mentioned in
that Schedule, which, not having been
previously executed by any person, is
executed out of India on or after that day,
relates to any property situate, or to any
matter or thing done or to be done, in 8
[India] and is received in India.

Provided that no duty shall be chargeable in
respect of-

(1) any instrument executed by, or on behalf of,
or in favour of, the Government incases where, but
for this exemption, the Government would be
liable to pay the duty chargeable in respect of such
instrument;

(2) any instrument for the sale, transfer or other
disposition, either absolutely or byway of
mortgage or otherwise, of any ship or vessel, or
any part, interest, share or property of or in any
ship or vessel registered under the Merchant
Shipping Act 1894, or under Act 19 of 1838, or
the Indian Registration of Ships Act, 1841, as
amended by subsequent Acts.
7
(3) any instrument executed ,by, or , on behalf
of, or, in favour of, the Developer , or Unit or in
connection with the carrying out of purposes of
the Special Economic Zone,

Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, the
expressions “Developer”, “Special Economic
Zone” and “Unit” shall have meanings respectively
assigned to them in clause(g), (za) and (zc) of
Section 2 of the Special Economic Zones Act,
2005.”
The other provisions contained in the said chapter deal with the mode

and manner of payment etc.

Chapter III of the Act provides for adjudication with regard to proper

stamps; whereas Chapter IV deals with instruments not duly stamped.

Section 33 casts a duty upon every person who has authority to

receive evidence and every person incharge of a public office before whom

the instrument is produced, if it appears to him that the same is not duly

stamped, to impound the same. Sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Act

lays down the procedure for undertaking the process of impounding.

Section 35 provides that an instrument shall be inadmissible in evidence if

the same is not duly stamped in the following terms :-
8
”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 an
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 rupees, of a sum
equal to ten times such duty or portion ;

(b)where any person from whom a stamped receipt
could have been demanded, has given an
unstamped receipt and such receipt, if stamped,
would be admissible in evidence against him,
then such receipt shall be admitted in evidence
against him on payment of a penalty of one
rupee by the person tendering it;

(c)where a contract or agreement of any kind is
effected by correspondence consisting of two
or more letters and any one of the letters bears
the proper stamp, the contract or agreement
shall be deemed to be duly stamped;

(d)nothing herein contained shall prevent the
admission of any instrument in evidence in any

9
proceeding in a Criminal Court, other than a
proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter
XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure
1898;

(e)nothing herein contained shall prevent the
admission of any instrument in any Court when
such instrument has been executed by or on
behalf of the Government or where it bears the
certificate of the Collector as provided by
section 32 or any other provision of this Act.”
11. Section 36 of the Act provides that where an instrument has been

admitted in evidence, such admission shall not, except as provided in

Section 21 thereof, be called in question at any stage of same suit or

proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped.

Section 38 provides for the mode and manner in which the instrument

impounded is to be dealt with.

12. The Parliament has, in Section 35 of the Act, advisedly used the

words “for any purpose whatsoever”. Thus, the purpose for which a

document is sought to be admitted in evidence or the extent thereof would

not be a relevant factor for not invoking the aforementioned provisions.
10
13. The land in the instant case is situated in a Scheduled Area.

Execution of a deed of conveyance in respect of the land situated in the

scheduled area is statutorily barred. All transactions can be affected only

upon obtaining the permission of the collector in terms of the provisions of

Section 165 (6) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959. We are, however,

not concerned with the said provisions.

14. Indisputably an instrument was executed. By reason of such an

instrument not only the entire amount of consideration was paid but

possession of the property had also been transferred.

Explanation appended to Article 23 of Schedule IA of the Stamp Act

as substituted by M.P. Act No. 19 of 1989 reads as under :-

“Explanation.- For the purpose of this Article,
where in the case of agreement to sell immovable
property, the possession of any immovable
property is transferred to the purchaser before
execution after execution of such agreement
without executing the conveyance in respect
thereof, then such agreement to sell shall be
deemed to be a conveyance and stamp duty
thereon shall be leviable accordingly:

Provided that the provisions of section 47A shall
apply mutatis mutandis to such agreement which
11
is deemed to be a conveyance as aforesaid, as they
apply to a conveyance under that section:

Provided further that where subsequently a
conveyance is effected in pursuance of such
agreement of sale, the stamp duty, if any, already
paid and recovered on the agreement of sale,
which is deemed to be a conveyance shall be
adjusted towards the total duty leviable on the
conveyance subject to a minimum of Rs.10.”
15. The said explanation has been inserted by M.P. Act 19 of 1989 with

effect from 15th November, 1989. By reason of the said provision, thus, a

legal fiction has been created. Although ordinarily an agreement to sell

would not be subject to payment of stamp duty which is payable on a sale

deed, but having regard to the purpose and object it seeks to achieve the

legislature thought it necessary to levy stamp duty on an instrument

whereby possession has been transferred.

The validity of the said provision is not in question.

16. It is not in dispute that the possession of the property had been

delivered in favour of the appellant. He has, thus, been exercising some

right in or over the land in question. We are not concerned with the

enforcement of the said agreement. Although the same was not registered,

12
but registration of the document has nothing to do with the validity thereof

as provided for under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

17. We have noticed heretobefore that Section 33 of the Act casts a

statutory obligation on all the authorities to impound a document. The court

being an authority to receive a document in evidence is bound to give effect

thereto.

18. The unregistered deed of sale was an instrument which required

payment of the stamp duty applicable to a deed of conveyance. Adequate

stamp duty admittedly was not paid. The court, therefore, was empowered

to pass an order in terms of Section 35 of the Act.

19. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the document

was admissible for collateral purpose, in our opinion, is not correct. In

Bondar Singh (supra) this Court was not concerned with the provisions of

the Act. Only interpretation of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908

was in question. It was opined :-
” The main question, as we have already
noted, is the question of continuous possession of
13
the plaintiffs over the suit lands. The sale deed
dated 9-5-1931 by Fakir Chand, father of the
defendants in favour of Tola Singh, the
predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, is an
admitted document in the sense its execution is not
in dispute. The only defence set up against the said
document is that it is unstamped and unregistered
and therefore it cannot convey title to the land in
favour of the plaintiffs. Under the law a sale deed
is required to be properly stamped and registered
before it can convey title to the vendee. However,
legal position is clear law that a document like the
sale deed in the present case, even though not
admissible in evidence, can be looked into for
collateral purposes. In the present case the
collateral purpose to be seen is the nature of
possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. The
sale deed in question at least shows that initial
possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land was
not illegal or unauthorized…”

In this case, by reason of the statutory interdict, no transfer at all is

permissible. Even transfer of possession is also not permissible. [See

Pandey Oraon v. Ram Chander Sahu 1992 Supp (2) SCC 77 and Amrendra

Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati and Others (2004) 10 SCC 65]

20. The Registration Act, 1908 provides for such a contingency in terms

of the proviso appended to Section 49 thereof, which reads as under :-
“49. Effect of non-registration of documents
required to be registered.-
14
No document required by section 17 or by any
provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4
of 1882), to be registered shall–
(a) affect any immovable property comprised
therein, or
(b) confer any power to adopt, or
(c) be received as evidence of any transaction
affecting such property or conferring such power,
unless it has been registered:
Provided that an unregistered document affecting
immovable property and required by this Act or
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to
be registered may be received as evidence of a
contract in a suit for specific performance under
Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of
1877) or as evidence of any collateral transaction
not required to be effected by registered
instrument.”
21. Section 35 of the Act, however, rules out applicability of such

provision as it is categorically provided therein that a document of this

nature shall not be admitted for any purpose whatsoever. If all purposes for

which the document is sought to be brought in evidence are excluded, we
15
fail to see any reason as to how the document would be admissible for

collateral purposes.

22. The view we have taken finds support from the decision of the Privy

Council in Ram Rattan v. Parmananad, [AIR 1946 PC 51] wherein it was

held :-

“That the words `for any purpose’ in Section 35 of
the Stamp Act should be given their natural
meaning and effect and would include a collateral
purpose and that an unstamped partition deed
cannot be used to corroborate the oral evidence for
the purpose of determining even the factum of
partition as distinct from its terms.”
The said decision has been followed in a large number of decisions by

the said Court. In Bhaskarabhotla Padmanabhaiah and others v. B.

Lakshminarayana and others [ AIR 1962 A.P. 132 ], it has been held :-
“9. In this case, the learned Subordinate Judge
has observed that what the plaintiff was trying to
prove was not the division in status but to show
that the property was divided under the partition
deed. In any case, the fact that the document is
inadmissible due to want of being stamped is
clear. For, in Ram Rattan v. Parmanand, AIR
1946 PC 51, their Lordships of the Privy Council
16
held that the words `for any purpose’ in S. 35 of
the Stamp Act should be given their natural
meaning and effect and would include a collateral
purpose and that an unstamped partition deed
cannot be used to corroborate the oral evidence for
the purpose of determining even the factum of
partition as distinct from its terms.”
It was furthermore held :-
“10. In the result, I agree with the learned
Munsif-Magistrate that the document is `an
instrument of partition’ under Sec. 2(15) of the
Indian Stamp Act and it is not admissible in
evidence because it is not stamped. But, I further
held that if the document becomes duly stamped,
then it would be admissible to evidence to prove
the division in status but not the terms of the
partition.”

In Sanjeeva Reddi v. Johanputra Reddi, [ AIR 1972 A.P. 373 ], it

has been held :-
“9. While considering the scope of Section 35 of
the Indian Stamp Act we cannot bring in the effect
of non-registration of a document under Section
49 of the Indian Registration Act. Section 17 of
the Indian Registration Act deals with documents,
the registration of which is compulsory and
Section 49 is concerned only with the effect of
such non-registration of the documents which
require to be registered by Section 17 or by any
provision of the Transfer of Property Act. The
effect of non-registration is that such a document

17
shall not affect any immovable property covered
by it or confer any power to adopt and it cannot be
received as evidence of any transaction affecting
such property or conferring such power. But there
is no prohibition under Section 49 to receive such
a document which requires registration to be used
for a collateral purpose i.e. for an entirely different
and independent matter. There is a total and
absolute bar as to the admission of an unstamped
instrument whatever be the nature of the purpose
or however foreign or independent the purpose
may be for which it is sought to be used, unless
there is compliance with the requirements of the
provisos to Section 35. In other words if an
unstamped instrument is admitted for a collateral
purposes. It would amount to receiving such a
document in evidence for a purpose which Section
35 prohibits. There is nothing in the case of B.
Rangaiah v. B. Rangaswamy, (1970) 2 Andh WR
181 which supports the contention of the
petitioner. That was a case as pointed out by
Kuppuswami, J., where there were two
instruments though contained in one document
one a settlement in favour of the 4th defendant
therein and the other a will. It was therefore held
that part of the instrument which constitutes a will
did not require any stamp and will be admissible
in evidence for proving the bequest contained
therein. It was for that reason that the learned
Judge said that Sec. 35 of the Stamp Act has no
application to a case where one of the separate
instruments relating to one such matters would not
at all be chargeable under the Act as in the case
before him.”
18
In T. Bhaskar Rao v. T. Gabriel and others, [ AIR 1981 A.P. 175 ], it

has been held :-
“5. Section 35 of the Stamp Act mandates that an
instrument chargeable with duty should be
stamped so as to make it admissible in evidence.
Proviso A to Section 35 of the Stamp Act enables
a document to be received in evidence on payment
of stamp duty and penalty if the document is
chargeable, but not stamped or on payment of
deficit duty and penalty, if it is insufficiently
stamped. The bar against the admissibility of an
instrument which is chargeable with stamp duty
and is not stamped is of course absolute whatever
be the nature of the purpose, be it for main or
collateral purpose, unless the requirements of
proviso (A) to Section 35 are complied with. It
follows that if the requirements of proviso (A) to
Section 35 are satisfied, then the document which
is chargeable with duty, but not stamped, can be
received in evidence.”
It was further held :-
“7. It is now well settled that there is no
prohibition under Section 49 of the Registration
Act, to receive an unregistered document in
evidence for collateral purpose. But the document
so tendered should be duly stamped or should

19
comply with the requirements of Section 35 of the
Stamp Act, if not stamped, as a document cannot
be received in evidence even for collateral purpose
unless it is duly stamped or duty and penalty are
paid under Section 35 of the Stamp Act.”

(See also Firm Chuni Lal Tukki Mal v. Firm Mukat Lal Ram Chanda

and others, [ AIR 1965 All. 164 ] and Chandra Sekhar Misra v. Gobinda

Chandra Das, [ AIR 1966 Ori. 18 ] ).

23. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal which

fails and is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case,

there shall be no order as to costs.

………………………..J.
[ S.B. Sinha ]

………………………..J.
[ Cyriac Joseph ]
New Delhi

December 17, 2008
20

About these ads

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 623,326 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,551 other followers

comments

k.inbasakaran,advoca… on Sec.138 of N.I.Act – Ter…
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,551 other followers