RAMESHWAR DAYAL GUPTA Vs. CHIEF INSPECTOR OF STAMPS
LAWS(ALL)-1979-9-21
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on September 14,1979

RAMESHWAR DAYAL GUPTA Appellant
VERSUS
The Chief Inspector of Stamps Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) In a case under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act an agreement dated 30th December 1968 was filed before the District Judge, Muzalffarnagar who was exercising powers as a Tribunal under that Act. An objection was raised by Inspector of Stamps that as the agreement also contained the power of attorney, a penalty of Rs. 4616.70 p. may be imposed on it. This contention of the Inspector was not accepted and it was held that sub-Clause (4) of Article 48 of Stamps Act was applicable and the total penalty leviable was Rs. 36. 85 Naya Paisa. Against this order the Chief Inspector of Stamps acting as Collector filed reference under section 61 of the Indian Stamp Act (Act II of 1899) which came up for hearing before the Full Bench on 8th May, 1979. It was held that as the reference was not a reference under Section 57 (2) it was to be listed before appropriate Bench. It was later on listed before Division Bench which passed an order on 29th August 1979 that revision was under Section 61 and therefore it should be listed before the bench hearing revision. It is in these circumstances this revision has been listed for decision.
(2.) Learned counsel for the assessee Rameshwar Dayal Singh had raised a preliminary objection that this revision is not maintainable. It has been argued by him that the decision was not by a Civil Court and therefore the order was not revisable under section 61. Reliance has been placed on Satish Chandra v. State of U.P. through Collector Farrukhabad, 1970 AWR 875 . It was held : "that a claim tribunal constituted under section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not a Civil Court subordinate to High Court within the meaning of Section 115 Civil Procedure Code."
(3.) In United India Fire & General Insurance v. Mst. Sayar Kunmar, AIR 1976 Rajasthan, 173 a similar view has been taken. It is therefore clear that the District Judge while exercising power under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act was a Tribunal and not a Court under Section 61 of the Stamps Act which reads as under : * * * *;


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