LexTHE BOARD OF REVENTE, U. P. AND OTHEHS versus SARDARNI VIDYAWATI AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962
:50 SUPREME COGRT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
THE BOARD OF REVENTE, U. P. AND
OTHEHS
t'.
SARDARXI VIDYAWATI AND ANOTHER
(S. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR, K. SFnBA R,w, K. N.
WANCrroo and N'. RA.JAGOP.U.A AYY A :\GAR, J,J.)
Stamp Duly- lmpoundinq of document -
llcferrn•:c-
lleVl!n?t-! /Joard, if mlUif
lu11r
the pflrly
f1[f~/rirrp1/ -
/nrlirzn
Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of !89Y), ss. 33, 5G(2).
The respondents sought permission of the Court to with.
dra\v certain moneys on furnishing security which \\·as granted.
A security bond was executed by the respondents by
v..·hich a
house v•as given as security.
The Inspector of Stan1p; rcpnr-
t~d that the security bonrl ,,·as
inc:ufficicntly
starnpt:d
and
therefore it should he in1p0undcrl anrl a deficit stamp duty
of Rs. 4B2;1 I !·and a penalty of Rs. 4,82G:I ~!-should he le\'icd.
'I'hereupor1 thr: ])cputy Con11nissionrr, acting as Collector,
called for objcr.tinns.
'J'hc judicial
offic~r hefurf! \\'horn the
security bond , .. ,as filed in1pnundcrl the bond and
for\\'ardcd
it to the Deputy Comrnissioner.
Afi.cr further ohjcctLJns h·erc
filed by the respondents before the Stan1p Offirrr,
the latter
submitted a report to the l)tputy
Co1nmissiuner upholding
the order of the Inspector of Stamps.
Therc:upon the Deputy
Commissioner passed an order ''realise". ·rhe responrlnents filed
a re.vision petition against the order of the Deputy Commis-
sioner before the Board of Re\'en1H~ and \\·hile that petirion
'vas pending the Deputy Commission,.r referred the 1nat1er to
the Boarrl of Revenue under s. j() (2) of the Stamp ;\ct and
the Board of Ile.venue passed an order upholding the orrh.:r of
the Deputy
Cuminissioner.
'J'hc respondent:.; then filer! ;i
\\·rit petition-under Art.
226 of the
(~on!'-titution before the
High Court.
1,heir 1n~in contention \\'as that they were 11nt
gh·en a hearing f":ither hy the Board of Revcnur: <ir the J)cputy
Commissioner.
'!'he p~tition \Va!! heard by a Single Judge vvhn
dismissed the petition on the ground that ncith~:r t!ie Stan1p
i\ct nor the Rules franied thcreundr-r providr-d that a hear-
ing should be given to the aggrieved person.
Th~rt>aficr the
appeal Court creatl"d the m;i.ttcr as a
rcfer('n~e hrfore the
R("venue Boar<l 11ndCr s. 51) (2) of the 1\ct and
h~Jd that the
Act or Rules did not require. tl:at a hearing sliculd be given by
the authorities acting under s. :)G but that although they \\'Crc
acting only ad1ninistrativcly they \\'ere hound to give a hear~
ing according to the principle~ of natural justice. 'fh(' appeal
was allowed.
j
1
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REP0RT3
51
Held, that it is clear that s. 56 (2) deals with cases where
there is a doubt in the mind of the Collector in regard to an
instrument as to its construction and the provisions of the Act
applicable to it.
Sucb doubt itself shows that the point rais.
ed for the Collector's decisions is a difficult point of law and
from the very nature of the duty to be performed in such cir-
cumstances it appears clear that the Chief Controlling Reve-
nue Authority has to decide the matter judicially and would
thus be a quasi-judicial tribunal.
w
Where .the provisions of the Act are silent, the duty to
act judicially may be inferred from the provisions of the statu-
te or may be gathered from the cumulative effect of the
-
nature of the rights affected, the manner of the disposal provid-
ed the objective criterion to be adopted and the phraseology
used and other indicia afforded by the statute.
The questions before the Board under s. 56 (2) being
one of construction of an instrument and the application of
the Act to it being a pure questions of law which may result
in payment of large amounts by the executani of the docu-
ment, the Board should give, for the determination of such
question, a hearing and it should act judicially in determin-
ing a pure question of law.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 29 of 1958.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated
May 3, 1956, of the Allahabad High Court in Spe-
cial Appeal No. 48of1954.
Veda Vya.sa and 0. P. Lal. for the appellant.
A. N. Goyal, for the respondents.
1962. February 6, The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
WANCHOO, J.-This is an appeal on a certifi-
cate granted by the Alla.habad _High Court. The
brief facts necessary for present purposes are these.
Certain decretal moneys were deposited in the then
- Chief Court ·of Oudh at Lucknow. The reExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.