GANGAPPA AND ANR. versus FAKKIRAPPA

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 603 · Decided: 14-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
603
GANGAPPA AND ANR.
v.
FAKKIRAPPA
(Civil Appeal No. 11932 of 2018)
DECEMBER 14, 2018
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Karnataka Stamp Act,1957 – ss.33, 34 and 38 – Appellants-
plaintiffs entered into agreements to sell with respondent-defendant
– Appellants filed suits for specific performance of contract –
Principal Civil Judge impounded agreements to sell filed by the
plaintiffs in the suits with direction to the plaintiff to pay deficit
duty and penalty – Agreements to sell in question were admitted in
evidence on payment of deficit duty and penalty which was double
the deficit duty in both the suits – Respondent filed writ petition –
High Court directed the court below to levy the penalty at 10 times
of the deficit duty – Propriety of – Held: Sections 33 and 34 clearly
indicate that penalty imposed has to be 10 times – High Court
correctly interpreted the provisions of s.33 in the impugned judgment
–There is no discretion vested with the authority impounding the
document in the matter of collecting duty u/s.33 – However, in the
present case the order of the trial court was passed as early as on
22.04.2013, i.e. more than five years ago – In view of impounding
the documents and imposition of penalty, the suit must not have
proceeded further, and it must be at the threshold stage – Asking
the appellant to deposit 10 times of penalty and thereafter to invoke
the jurisdiction of Deputy Collector u/s.38 to refund penalty shall
be a proceeding again taking considerable time – In the facts of
the present case, ends of justice be served in closing the matter by
confirming the payment of deficit duty with the double penalty as
imposed by the trial court.
Karnataka Stamp Act,1957 – ss.38, 39 – Discretion to Deputy
Commissioner – Scope of – Discussed.
Karnataka Stamp Act,1957 – ss.33 and 39 – Contradistinction
between – Object of – Discussed.
[2018] 13 S.C.R. 603
603
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The statute envisages that when the 10 times
of the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof
exceeds five rupees, a sum equal to 10 times of such duty or
portion is the penalty. The language of Section 34, Karnataka
Stamp Act,1957 provides a flat rate of penalty when the amount
of proper duty exceeds five rupees i.e. 10 times of such duty or
portion. There is a clear contrast in the language of Section 34
and Section 39 of the 1957 Act. Section 39(1)(b) indicates that if
the Deputy Commissioner is of opinion that such instrument is
chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped shall require the
payment of the proper duty with a penalty of five rupees. The
latter part of the provision  states “or if he thinks fit an amount
not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper duty or of the
deficient portion thereof, whether such amount exceeds or falls
short of five rupees”. Thus, discretion has been conferred on
the Deputy Commissioner which is apparent from the words “if
he thinks fit”. Deputy Commissioner has discretion of imposing
penalty of 10 times or lesser of the amount of duty or portion
thereof. There is clear contradistinction between the power under
Section 33 and 39. The object and purpose for such
contradistinction in the provision and power is not far to seek.
Section 33 applies to every person having by law or consent of
parties authority to receive evidence, and every person in-charge
of a public office. Thus, Section 33 covers a host of authorities,
persons before whom instruments are filed. The legislative
scheme does not indicate any distinction between a court receiving
an insufficiently stamped instrument in evidence and other
authorities. All have to impose penalty of 10 times of the duty or
deficit portion, if it exceeds rupees five. This provision is for
purpose of maintaining a uniformity in imposing a fixed penalty of
10 times without adverting to any adjudicatory process regarding
quantifying the quantum of penalty.  The statute gives discretion
to Deputy Commissioner who is the authority envisaged by the
Act in-charge of the revenue administration of a District.
[Paras 12-14] [609-F-H; 610-B-G]
1.2 The amount of duty and penalty is required to be sent
to Deputy Commissioner under Section 37. Deputy
Commissioner under Section 38 is empowered to refund any
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
605
portion of the penalty in excess of five rupees which has been
paid in respect of such instrument. Section 38 sub-section (1)
ag

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.