TRIDESHWAR DAYAL AND ANR. versus MAHESHWAR DAYAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 529 · Decided: 19-12-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

TRIDESHWAR DAYAL AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
MAHESHWAR DAYAL AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 19, 1989 
[LAUT MOHAN SHARMA AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.) 
B 
Indian Stamp Act, 1899: Sections J3, 56 and 47-A (U.P. State 
Amendment)-Arbitration award-Insufficiently stamped-Impound-
ing-Limitation for-Chief Controlling Revenue Authority-Whether 
competent to interfere with the order of Collector. 
A dispute between the appellants and resp•mdent No. I was refer-
red to an arbitrator who made an award and filed it before the civil 
court. On objection by the appellants, the prayer for making the award 
a rule of the court was rejected. On appeal, the High Court confirmed 
the same. This Court refused special leave and a petition for review was 
also dismissed. 
Meanwhile, respondent No. 1 applied to the Collector fdr 
summoning the award and for realising the escaped duty and penalty. 
The application was allowed. The appellants moved the Chief Control-
ling Revenue Authority under Section 56 of the hidian Stamp Act, 1899 
and the authority set aside the Collector's order. The respondents chal-
lenged the said order in a writ petition before the High Court which 
allowed the same and remanded the case to the Collector for deciding it 
afresh. 
Aggrieved, the appellants filed this appeal by special leave, con-
tending inter alia, that; (a) Respondent No. 1 had no locus standi to 
move the Collector for impounding the award: (b) the Collector had no 
authority to pass the impugned order after a decade; and (c) the 
Collector did not have the power to enquire into the correct valuation of 
the property which was subject matter of the award. 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: J. I It is well settled that if a court acts without jurisdic-
tion, its decision can be challenged in the same way as it would have 
been challenged if it had acted with jurisdiction, i.e. an appeal would lie 
to the court to which it would lie.if its order was with jurisdiction. [532A] 
529 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
530 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
1.2 There is no question of limitation arising and it cannot be said 
that what had to be done promptly in 1976 could not be done later. The 
orders of the Collector dated 15.7.1983 and 22.7.1983 were passed as 
the follow-up steps iu pursuance of the civil court's direction dated 
18.3. 76 and no valid objection can be taken against them. The Col-
lector, therefore, shall have to proceed further for· realisation of the 
escaped duty. [532G J 
1.3 The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority had full power to 
interfere with the Collector's order, provided it was found to be errone-
ous. But this Court does not find any defect in the Collector directing 
taking of steps for realisation of the stamp duty. [532B] 
Janardan Reddy and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad and Ors., [1951] 
SCR 344, relied on. 
2. The instant case comes from Uttar Pradesh where express pro-
D visions have been made by the insertion of Section 47-A, authorising the 
Collector to examine the correctness of the valuation. Hence the Col-
lector had the power to enquire into the valuation of the property which 
was the subject matter of the award. [533A-B] 
Himalaya House Co. Ltd., Bombay v. Chief Controlling Revenue 
E Authority, [1972] 3 SCR 332, referred to. 
F 
G 
H 
3. It is clarified that on the strength of the present judgment it 
will not be open to the respondent to urge that the effect of the High 
Court decision dated 8.7.1981 and the order of this Court dismissing the 
special leave petition therefrom and later the review application have 
disappeared or have got modified. [533D-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5055 
of 1989. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.2.1989 of the Allahabad 
High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 12322 of 1984. 
Salish Chandra, E.C. Agarwala, Atul Sharma, Ms. Purnima 
Bhatt and V .K Pan di ta for the Appellants. 
G.L. Sanghi, B.D. Agarwal, G. Ganesh, K.L. John and Ms. Shobha 
Dikshit for the Respondents. 
TRIDESHWAR v. MAHESHWAR [SHARMA, l.J 
531 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHARMA, J. This case arises out of a proceeding under the 
Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Special leave is granted. 
2. A dispute between the appellants and the respondent No. 1, 
who are members of a family, was referred to an arbitrator, who made 
an award on 9.10.1973, and filed the same within a few days before the 
civil court for making it a rule of the court. On objection by the 
present appellants, the prayer was rejec

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