Skip to content


Sheo Prasad Govindram Holani Vs. Kamakhya Prasad Sheobux Roy - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCommercial;Civil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Ref. No. 87 of 1959
Judge
Reported inAIR1961Raj181
ActsConstitution of India - Articles 14 and 372; Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 - Sections 6
AppellantSheo Prasad Govindram Holani
RespondentKamakhya Prasad Sheobux Roy
Appellant Advocate P.N. Dutt, Adv.; B.C. Chatterji, Asstt. Govt. Adv.
Respondent Advocate P.C. Bhandari, Adv.
Cases ReferredState of M. P. v. G. C. Mandawar
Excerpt:
- .....act which was in force in sikar on the date of the execution of the pronote it was chargeable with stamp duty of -/5/- annas. the promissory note in suit however bore a stamp -/4/-annas only. the trial court dismissed the suitholding that the promissory note was inadmissible in evidence being insufficiently stamped.on appeal the learned district judge held that the indian stamp act had come into force on 15th may 1952 by virtue of the rajasthan stamp law (adaptation) act, 1952 and that the document was properly stamped under the stamp act which was in force on the date of its execution. he accordingly remanded the case to the trial court for decision in accordance with law.2. against the above order of remand the present appeal was filed by the defendant. the learned single judge who.....
Judgment:

Jagat Narayan, J.

1. The facts giving rise to this reference are these. The plaintiff instituted a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,717/- on 5-2-54 on the basis of a pronote dated 22-7-52 for a sum of Rs. 3250/-. This pronote was executed at Sikar which was formerly in the erstwhile State of Jaipur. Under the Jaipur Stamp Act which was in force in Sikar on the date of the execution of the pronote it was chargeable with stamp duty of -/5/- annas. The promissory note in suit however bore a stamp -/4/-annas only. The trial court dismissed the suitholding that the promissory note was inadmissible in evidence being insufficiently stamped.

On appeal the learned District Judge held that the Indian Stamp Act had come into force on 15th May 1952 by virtue of the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 and that the document was properly stamped under the Stamp Act which was in force on the date of its execution. He accordingly remanded the case to the trial court for decision in accordance with law.

2. Against the above order of remand the present appeal was filed by the defendant. The learned Single Judge who heard the appeal held that by virtue of the second proviso to Section 6 the Jaipur Stamp Act was in force in Sikar with the regard to the rates of stamp duty payable on bills of exchange, cheques, promissory notes, bills. He was however inclined to the view that this proviso was invalid as it purported to enforce different laws in different areas of Rajasthan. He accordingly referred the case to a Division, Bench.

3. The rates of stamp duty in respect of bills of exchange, cheques, promissory notes, bills of lading, letters of credit, policies of insurance, transfer of shares, debentures, proxies and receipts fall under item 91 of List I of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. As such the State of Rajasthan was not competent to legislate in respect of these items. That is why the rates of stamp duty prevailing in different parts of the State at the time of the enactment of the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952, were left intact.

4. These different rates of stamp duty prevailing in different parts of Rajasthan were enacted by different Governments. The laws enacting these different duties cannot be struck down under Article 14 of the Constitution. It may be mentioned that these laws were continued by Article 372 of the Constitution.

5. It was observed in the State of M. P. v. G. C. Mandawar, AIR 1954 SC 493 by their Lordships of the Supreme Court :

'The power of the Court to declare a law void under Article 13 has to be exercised with reference to the specific legislation which is impugned. It is conceivable that when the same legislature enacts two different laws but in substance they form one legislation, it might be open to the Court to disregard the form and treat them as one law and strike it down, if in their conjunction they result in discrimination. But such a course is not open where the two laws sought to be read in conjunction are by different Governments and by different legislatures. Article 14 does not authorise the striking down of a law of one State on the ground that in contrast with a law of another State on the same subject its provisions are discriminatory.'

We are accordingly of the view that the second proviso to Section 6 is not hit by Article 14 of the Constitution.

6. The result is that we find that the promissory note was not properly stamped. The plaintiff moved an application in the trial court for permission to amend the plaint so as to fall back on the original loan. This application was dismissed by the trial court. The appellate court has not expressed any opinion on this aspect of the cise.

7. In the result the appeal is allowed, the order of the appellate court remanding the suit to the trial court is set aside, and the appeal is remanded for rehearing in accordance with law. The costs of these proceedings shall abide the final result of the suit.


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