CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY versus SUPERINTENDENT OF STAMPS AND MAHARASHTRA SUGAR MILLS LTD.

Citation: [1950] 1 S.C.R. 536 · Decided: 27-05-1950 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HARILAL JEKISUNDAS KANIA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1950 
Dr.N.B. Khare 
v. 
The Stale of Delhi 
Mukhnjea]. 
1950 
536 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19501 
force, 
and consequently the order made by the District 
Magistrate in the present case cannot stand. 
I would, 
therefore, 
allow the application 
and 
quash 
the 
externment order that has been passed 
against the petitioner. 
Petition dismissed. 
Agent for the petitioner: Gan pat Rai. 
Agent for the opposite party: P. A. Mehta. 
CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY 
AND 
SUPERINTENDENT OF STAMPS 
ti. 
MAHARASHTRA SUGAR MILLS 
LTD. 
[SHR1 HARILAL KANg C. J., SAIYID FAzL Au, 
PATANJALI SASTRI, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN 
and MUKHERJEA J J.) 
Indian Stamp Act (II of 1899), ss. 57, 59 (2)-Reference lo 
High Court-Nature of power .to refer-Duty to refer on reque.11 
of party affected-Order directing Chief Controlling Authority 
to refer-Whether 
"matter 
concerning 
revenues"-furisdiction 
of Original Side of High Court-Government of India Act, 1935, 
s. 266(1). 
The power conferred on the Chief Revenue Authority by 
Sec. 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, to make a reference to the High 
Court is not intended for the benefit of the Revenue Authority 
alone, but ensures, also for the benefit of the party affected by the 
assessment. It is 
th~reforc coupled with a duty 
to make a 
reference when he is called upon to do so by the party affected, and 
if he declines to do so, it is within the power of the Court to 
direct him to 
discharge that ducy and make a reference to the 
Court. 
Alcock Ashdown & Co., Ltd. v. Chief Revenue Authority 
(SO I.A. 227) and /ulius v. Bishop of Orford (5 A.C. 214) applied. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
537 
The order of a High Court to a revenue officer to do his duty 
would not be the exercise of original jurisdiction in a matter 
concerning the 
revenue within the meaning of Sec. 226 of the 
Government of India Act, 1935, and the jurisdiction of the High 
Court to direct the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to make 
a reference under Sec. 57 of the Stamp Act was not barred by 
Sec. 226 of the Government of India Act. 
The fact that the proceedings had passed beyond the stage 
-:if enforcing payment does not preyent the High Court from 
directing the Revenue Authority to make a reference, for, if the 
opinion of the Court on the reference is against the Revenue Autho-
. rity he will have to refund whatever has been recovered in excess, 
under Sec. 59 (2) of the Act. 
APPEAL from 
the High Court of Judicature at 
Bombay : Civil Appeal No. XII of 1950. 
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. 60 of 1946. 
The facts are fully set out in the 
judgment. 
C. 
K. Daphtary, 
Advocate-General 
of Bombay 
(M. M. Desai, with him) for the appellant. 
M. C. Setalvad, 
Attorney-General for India (S.S. 
Ragnekar, with him) for the respondent. 
1950. 
May 27. 
The judgment of the Court was 
delivered by . 
· 
KANIA C. J.-This is an appe-al 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. 
The respondent 
company, 
for 
its 
business, 
borrowed money from the Central Bank of India Ltd. 
at Bombay. 
In order to secure the loan a document 
was executed on the 22nd of March, 1945, with a 
stamp of Rs. 16-8-0, 
on the footing that it was a deed 
of· hypothecation 
without possession of the goods. 
When the deed 
was 
sent to the 
Sub-Registrar 
for 
registration he impounded 
the same and sent it to the 
Stamp Office. 
The Assistant Superintendent of Stamps 
1950 
Chief Conli'ollina 
Rev. Authority 
v. 
MaharashlTa 
Sugar Mills Ltd. 
Kania C.J. 
1950 
CliiAJ ConJrol/ing 
Rev. Aflthori!J 
Vo 
Maharashlr• 
Gug«r Mills-W. 
Eam•C.J. 
538 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1950] 
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 not duly stamped before execution. 
The respond-
ent's solicitors 
in their reply contended that the 
document was not, 
and was 
never intended by the 
parties to be, 
a mortgage with possession. 
They 
pointed out that no possession 
of the 
property had 
been given or was intended to 'be given, 
except in 
certain contingencies 
and therefore 
the document was 
p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.