This petition was rejected on the 4th July, 1946.
penalty involved important questions of law.
The matter came for hearing before Mr. Justice Blagden who did number grant the first relief but directed the appellant to state a case under section 57 of the Stamp Act to the Court for its opinion.
The respondents were asked to pay the amount forthwith.
K. Daphtary, Advocate General of Bombay M. M. Desai.
On the 27th July, 1945, the respondent filed a suit against the Central Bank companytending that the document was number a mortgage with possession.
In reply the Assistant Superintendent intimated that the docu ment was chargeable with duty of Rs.
The appellant filed an appeal but failed.
On 9th August, 1945, the respondents solicitors informed the Assistant Superintendent that such a suit had been filed and requested that the demand for payment of stamp duty and penalty may number be pressed under the circumstances.
A petition on behalf of the respondent to the appellant was also filed on the 5th of February in which it was prayed that either the order of the Assistant Superintendent of Stamps be rescinded or in the alternative a case may be referred under section 57 of the Stamp Act for the opinion of the High Court.
56,250 and a penalty of Rs.
The respondent there upon filed a petition in the High Court on the 19th of July, 1946, praying that a writ of certiorari may be issued against the appellant, or an order may be made against him under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, to cancel the levy of the stamp duty and penalty as claimed on behalf of the appellant or in the alter native the appellant may be ordered under section 57 of the Stamp Act to refer the matter to the High Court for its opinion.
This was an appeal from a judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay Chagla, Acting C.J. and Bhagwati J. dated 2nd September, 1947, in Appeal No.
In the further companyrespondence, on behalf of the appellant, the demand was reiterated and resort to the companyrcive procedure of section 48 of the Stamp Act was threatened.
On the 25th of January, 1946, the suit filed by the respond ent was disposed of by the Court and the rectification as prayed was ordered.
APPEAL from the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Civil Appeal No.
The Collector thereafter sent a letter to the respondents on the 17th January, 1946, demanding payment.
It was alleged that since a doubt had arisen as to whether the document gave effect to the companymon intention of the parties the Courts directions were sought for and if the Court found that the document as framed did number give effect to the said companymon intention of the parties the instrument may be rectified.
On the 1st February, 1946, the respondents solictors enquired of the Assistant Superintendent of Stamps whether he was agree able to make a reference under section 56 2 to the appel lant, as the question of liability to pay the stamp duty and.
May 27.
A similar letter was also sent to the Collector of Bombay.
They pointed out that numberpossession of the property had been given or was intended to be given, except in certain companytin gencies and therefore the document was properly stamped.
When the deed was sent to the Sub Registrar for registration he impounded the same and sent it to the Stamp Office.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India S.S. Ragne kar, with him for the respondent.
The respondents solicitors in their reply companytended that the document was number, and was never intended by the parties to be, a mortgage with possession.
with him for the appellant.
The Assistant Superintendent of Stamps wrote to the respondent that the document was a mortgage with possession, chargeable with duty under article 40 a of the Schedule and inquired why it was number duly stamped before execution.
XII of 1950.
The respondents solicitors immediately intimated the result of the suit to the Assistant Superin tendent and sent a companyy of the deed showing the rectifica tions made in the original document.
16 8 0, on the footing that it was a, deed of hypothecation without possession of the goods.
The respondent companypany, for its business, borrowed money from the Central Bank of India Ltd. at Bombay.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA C.J. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Bombay and it relates to the jurisdiction of the Court to direct the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and the Superintendent of Stamps at Bombay to state a case for the opinion of the Court under section 57 of the Stamp Act.
In order to secure the loan a document was executed on the 22nd of March, 1945, with a stamp of Rs.
5,000 had been imposed.
60 of 1946.
