LexR. RATILAL & CO. versus NATIONAL SECURITY ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
> • 5 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1047 Jaw. It would, we think, be inappropriate for the High Court exercising its writ jurisdiction to consider the evidetice for itself and reach its own conclusions in matters which have been left by the legislature to the decisions of specially constituted Tribunals. In the result, the appeals are allowed, the orders passed by the High Court in the two writ petitions filed by the respondent are set aside and the said writ petitions are ordered to be dismissed with costs. T. Prtm Sagar v: The Standard Vacuum Oil Company Madras and Others · Appeals allowed. Gajendragadkar J. R. RATILAL & CO. 1963 v. NATIONAL SECURITY ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Dec<mber 16 (A.K. SARKAR, J.C. SHAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Indian Stamp Act (II of 1899), s. 35, Sch. I. Art. 47-Un- stamped letter of cover of fire insurance-If and when admissible in evidence .. The appellant filed a suit on a duly completed policy of fire insurance and an unstamped letter of cover in respect of the same kind of insurance, issued by the respondent, to recover from it the loss suffered as a result of the destruction of the insured goods by fire. The respondent admitted liability on the policy but with regard to the letter of cover it contended that the letter was not admissible evidence for want of stamp. Held: Per Sarkar and Shah JJ. (i) A letter of cover no doubt contains a contract of insurance but it is not a policy of insurance and cannot be admitted in evidence as such under s. 35 of the Stamp Act. The Citizens Insurance Co. of Canada v. William Parsons, 7 A.C. 96. (ii) The proper construction of the General Exemption in Art. 47 of schedule! of the Stamp Act is that a letter of cover is not exempt from duty only when it is used for compelling the delivery of the policy mentioned in it. If it is used for any other purpose it is not exempted. When it is not so exempt it is an instru- ment chargeable with duty under s. 3 of the Stamp Act and admissible 1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] 1963. in evidence on payment of the requisite duty and penalty under s. 35 of the Act. R. Rati/al & Co. Per Raghubar Dayal J. (dissenting):- Section 35 contem· v. , plates letters of cover to bear the necessary stamp at the time of National Security execution and that any subsequent affixing of requisite stamp Assurance Co on an unstamped letter of cover will not make it a document which L d • can be used for any purpose including the basing of a claim. The 1 · proviso to the General Exception cannot be construed to mean that subsequent to the execution of a letter of cover any party standing to gain thereby may just put the requisite stamp on it and thereafter use it for enforcing any claim for any purpose. Sarkar J, Narayanan Chettiar v. Karuppathan, I.L.R. 3 Mad. 251. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 382 of 1961. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated May 24, 1960, of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No. 144 of 1958. B.K. Bhattachargee, D.K. De and S.N. Mukher- jee, for the appellant. N.C. Chatterjee and D.N. Mukherjee, for the respondent. December 16, 1963. The Judgment of A.K. ~.\ Sarkar and J.C. Shah JJ. was delivered by Sarkar, J. Raghubar Dayal J. delivered a dissenting Opinion. SARKAR J.-The appellant filed a suit in the Original Side of the High Court at Calcutta on a duly completed policy of fire insurance dated March 15, 1951 and bearing No. 26625, and an unstamped letter of cover dated November 5, 1951 in respect of the same kind of insurance issued by the respon- dent, to recover from it 'the loss suffered as a result of the destruction of the insured goods by fire. The respondent admitted liability on policy No. 26625 but with regard to the letter of cover it contended that the letter was not admissible in evidence for want of stamp. As it did not contest liability on that letter on any other ground nor on the policy, the only question in this appeal is whether the letter of cover can be admitted in evidence. That question depends on some of the provisions of the Stamp Act, 1899, to which reference will be made in due course. •• 5 S.C.R. SUPREME COlJRT REPORTS 1049 The letter of cover which bore the description 1963 'Interim Protection Note' provided that the appellant - "Proposing to effect insurance against fire .......... R. Ratilal & Co. and having agreed to pay ............ Tariff Pr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.