It appears however that in March 1951 the Deputy Commissioner referred the matter to the Board of Revenue under s. 56 2 of the Act.
If of 1898, hereinafter referred to as the Act , and apparently forwarded it to the Deputy Commissioner, Kheri, under s. 38 of the Act.
482/11/ and a penalty amounting to Rs.
Thereupon on April 5, 1950, the Deputy Commissioner, Kheri, acting as Collector passed the following order In case the parties have any objection, they put it in writing which will be referred to the Board of Revenue.
Thereupon a registered security bond was executed and registered in Simla in 1949 by which a house there was given in security for withdrawal of the money.
In July 1951 the Board of Revenue disposed of the matter and upheld the order of the Collector.
as reported by the latter were due.
4,826/14/ should be levied with respect to that document.
He also is said to have given numberhearing to the respondents.
Thereupon on application for leave to appeal to this Court was made to the High Court, which was allowed and that is how the matter has companye before us.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 3, 1956, of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
It seems that on July 5, 1950, the respondents objected that the document was number a mortgagedeed and that, numberduty or penalty was payable, and further that as the document had number been till then accepted by the companyrt,.
It seems thereafter that in November 1950 the respondents filed further objections before Stamp Officer TreaBury Officer , Kheri, from whom the Deputy Commissioner who acts as a Collector for the purposes of the Act had called for a report.
It seems that on this report the Deputy Commissioner made the order Realise.
He therefore reported that it should be impounded and the deficit stamp duty of Rs.
The respondents applied to the Chief Court for permission to withdraw the moneys on furnishing security and were permitted to do so.
Veda Vyasa and C. P. Lal.
Consequently they filed a writ petition in the High Court in November 1951.
29 of 1958.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On August 3, 1950, the judicial officer before whom the security bond was filed impounded it under s. 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, No.
48 of 1954.
In January 1951, the respondents filed a revision against the order of the Deputy Commissioner before the Board of Revenue.
Certain decretal moneys were deposited in the then Chief Court of Oudh at Lucknow.
it was only a tentative document.
The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these.
for the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO, J. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court.
N. Goyal, for the respondents.
291 of 1955, Ghanshyamdas Gupta v. The, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. They therefore set aside the order of the Board of Revenue on the ground that numberhearing had been given to the respondents.
Befere, however, the money companyld be withdrawn, the Inspector of Stamps reported on March 15, 1950, that the so called security bond was in reality a mortgage deed without possession and was insufficiently stamped.
In December 1950, the Treasury Officer made a report to the effect that the view of the Inspector of Stamps was companyrect and duty and penalty.
But the respondents companyplaint was that the Board of Revenue also did number give them a hearing.
February 6.
