STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRA Vs. N C K SONS EXPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Misc. appeal is filed by the appellant/applicant Bank namely State Bank of Saurashtra being aggrieved by order dated 17th February, 2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad on Exhibit No. R/20 in Original Application No. 65 of 1999. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer partly allowed the application of the defendants/respondents herein, wherein the defendants had prayed that the various documents mentioned in the application be impounded as they were not sufficiently stamped and hence, they were not admissible in evidence unless the applicant-Bank paid stamp duty in terms of Article 6 of Schedule I of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. The learned Presiding Officer rejected the said contention of the defendants with respect to other documents mentioned in the application but partly allowed the application by observing that document placed at page Nos. 44 to 46 of the paper book was not sufficiently stamped and as such was not admissible in evidence unless the Bank paid stamp duty as per provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act as applicable in the Gujarat State. Document which according to the learned Presiding Officer was liable for payment of deficit stamp duty was memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 14.6.1995. The Bank however felt aggrieved and has filed the present appeal in this Appellate Tribunal.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Maniyar for the appellant/applicant Bank and Mr. S.S. Panesar for the respondents/original defendants. I have gone through the proceedings and relevant provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 and in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

(3.) THE applicant-Bank refuted these allegations and submissions made by the defendants by filing affidavit in reply. According to them, property with respect to which the memorandum was executed was situated at Bombay and therefore they had correctly paid stamp duty and they were not obliged to pay any further amount by way of stamp duty just because copy of the said document was produced in Gujarat State before DAT, Ahmedabad. It was prayed by the Bank that the said application of the defendants be rejected.