CROMPTON ENGINEERING CO., (MADRAS) LTD. Vs. CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY, MADRAS
LAWS(MAD)-1953-3-42
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on March 04,1953

Crompton Engineering Co., (Madras) Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Madras Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Rajagopalan, J. - (1.) UNDER the orders of Krishnaswami Naidu J. on Appln. No. 1170 of 1951, the Board of Revenue, Madras, as the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, submitted a statement of the case under Section 57) Stamp Act, (Act 2 of 1899). The question for determination is the liability of the document, executed on 22 -3 -1948 by the Crompton Engineering Co. (Madras) Ltd., (referred to as the Borrower) to Best and Co., Ltd., (referred to as the company in the document), to be stamped as a mortgage deed under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act.
(2.) THE clauses of that document dated 22 -3 -1948 relevant for the determination of this question ran: "Clause 1: That the whole of the Borrower's floating assets .........and comprising lands, buildings and premises bearing door No. 27, Tiruvottiyur High Road, Madras, together with the electrical installation, plants, and machinery, furniture and fittings, office and transport vehicles, loose tools, book debts, imprest cash with employees, investments, interest accrued on investments, cash on hand and with bankers belonging to the Borrower and all other stocks and goods of the Borrower whether raw or in process of manufacture, and all articles manufactured therefrom which now or hereafter from time to time during the security shall be brought into, stored or be in or about the Borrower's warehouse, godowns, buildings or premises aforesaid or wherever else the same may be including any such goods in course of transit or delivery, shall be -hypothecated to the company and its assigns by way of first charge as continuing security for the payment by the Borrower ......... Clause 9: That this Agreement shall operate as a continuing security for all monies, indebtedness and liabilities aforesaid notwithstanding the existence of a credit balance on the said account at any time or any partial, payments or fluctuations of accounts." The document dated 22 -3 -1948 was not attested. It was not registered. "Mortgage deed" is defined for the purposes of the Stamp Act, and for the purposes of that Act only, in Section 2(17) of the Act: "'Mortgage deed' includes every instrument whereby for the purpose of securing money advanced, or to be advanced, by way of loan, or an existing or future debt, or the performance of an engagement, one person transfers, or creates, to, or in favour of, another, a right over or in respect of specified property." Of the arguments advanced by Mr. Nambiar for the borrower in support of his contentions, that the document was not a mortgage deed as defined by Section 2(17) of the Stamp Act only two need be considered: (1) there was no 'transfer' of right and (2) there was no transfer of right over or in respect of 'specified' property.
(3.) THE reference to the premises described in the document dated 22 -3 -1948 as bearing door No. 27 Thiruvpttiyur High Road, is obviously to a "specified" property within the meaning of Section 2(17), Stamp Act. Even with reference to the stock -in -trade the - - 'Secretary of Commissioner of Salt, Abkari and Separate Revenue, Madras v. Mrs. E. W. Orr and Bank of Madras, AIR 1916 Mad 374 (A), should suffice to conclude the question whether it is "specified property" within the meaning of Section 2(17), Stamp Act. White C. J. observed at page 376 ; "It seems to me that so far as the stock -in -trade etc. which are described in the deed as trust property are concerned, the trust property is specified.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.