Skip to content


Sakharam Shankar and ors. Vs. Ramchandra Babu Mohire - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1904)ILR27Bom181
AppellantSakharam Shankar and ors.
RespondentRamchandra Babu Mohire
Excerpt:
stamp - bill of exchange--sufficiency of stamp--construction of instrument. - section 31(4) (since repealed) :[tarun chatterjee & h.l.dattu, jj] jurisdiction of high court - respondent, a government company, chartered appellants vessel to carry rock phosphate from togo to west coast india - dispute arose between parties - under agreement, respondent had chosen mumbai as port of delivery vessel carrying rock phosphate was delivered at port of bombay - application filed by respondent earlier before delhi high court for appointment of certain individual as arbitrator had become infructuous because of his demise held, high court of bombay, is not correct in rejecting arbitration petition filed by appellant on ground of lack of jurisdiction. chandavarkar, j.1. in our view of the law the subordinate judge was right in looking at the document as it stands in determining the question whether it is sufficiently stamped and in treating it as properly stamped as a bill of exchange: see ramen chetty v. mahomed ghouse (1889) 16 cal. 432; royal bank of scotland v. tottenham . a defect if any, in the stamp act cannot be cured by construing a document to be other than what it is or purports (1894) 2 q.b. 715 to be.2. the revenue commissioner should be informed that in making a reference to this court under the stamp act the original document should be sent with the reference. in this case the original document has not been sent and we have had to look at a certified copy.
Judgment:

Chandavarkar, J.

1. In our view of the law the Subordinate Judge was right in looking at the document as it stands in determining the question whether it is sufficiently stamped and in treating it as properly stamped as a bill of exchange: see Ramen Chetty v. Mahomed Ghouse (1889) 16 Cal. 432; Royal Bank of Scotland v. Tottenham . A defect if any, in the Stamp Act cannot be cured by construing a document to be other than what it is or purports (1894) 2 Q.B. 715 to be.

2. The Revenue Commissioner should be informed that in making a reference to this Court under the Stamp Act the original document should be sent with the reference. In this case the original document has not been sent and we have had to look at a certified copy.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //