TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the auction-purchaser was bound to bear the expense of the proper stamp on the sale certificate. (ii) Whether an unsigned sale certificate, and thereafter the same certificate after first signature and issuance, came before the Subordinate Judge in the performance of his functions so as to attract Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. (iii) Whether, on discovering that the issued sale certificate was insufficiently stamped, the Subordinate Judge was bound or empowered to impound it and send it to the Collector. (iv) Whether the Subordinate Judge could, in exercise of inherent powers, recover and attach an additional stamp to the issued certificate.
Issue (i): Whether the auction-purchaser was bound to bear the expense of the proper stamp on the sale certificate.
Analysis: The certificate was a sale certificate granted on a judicial sale, and the expense of the proper stamp was governed by the statutory scheme placing the duty of providing the stamp on the purchaser. The instrument was required to bear the prescribed value under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, read with the relevant schedule entry.
Conclusion: This issue was answered in the affirmative, against the Collector and in favour of the purchaser.
Issue (ii): Whether an unsigned sale certificate, and thereafter the same certificate after first signature and issuance, came before the Subordinate Judge in the performance of his functions so as to attract Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
Analysis: Before signature by the Judge, the sale certificate was not yet an "instrument" within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, because no right or liability had yet been created or recorded by a completed executed document. Section 33 contemplates an instrument executed or first executed and produced before the officer. After the Judge signed and delivered the certificate to the purchaser, he had exhausted his judicial function and became functus officio. On the second occasion, when the certificate was brought back for additional stamping, it was no longer before him in the performance of his judicial functions.
Conclusion: This issue was answered in the negative, in favour of the purchaser.
Issue (iii): Whether, on discovering that the issued sale certificate was insufficiently stamped, the Subordinate Judge was bound or empowered to impound it and send it to the Collector.
Analysis: Once the certificate had been handed over, it was no longer in the custody or possession of the Court, so it could not be impounded under Section 33. The Judge, having become functus officio after issuing the certificate, had no authority to act under Section 33 on the later occasion, and the statutory machinery for impounding and transmission to the Collector was therefore unavailable on the facts.
Conclusion: This issue was answered in the negative, in favour of the purchaser.
Issue (iv): Whether the Subordinate Judge could, in exercise of inherent powers, recover and attach an additional stamp to the issued certificate.
Analysis: The Judge had no residual jurisdiction after signing and issuing the certificate. The later attachment of an additional stamp did not cure the defect in law, because the document had already left the Court and the Judge no longer retained authority over it.
Conclusion: This issue was answered in the negative, in favour of the purchaser.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered substantially against the Collector. The Court held that the purchaser was responsible for the proper stamp, but the Subordinate Judge had no authority, after issuing the certificate, to proceed under the impounding provisions or to cure the defect by later stamping the document.
Ratio Decidendi: A sale certificate is not an "instrument" for the purpose of Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 until it has been executed by the Judge, and after it has been signed and delivered the Judge becomes functus officio and cannot later impound it or validate it by accepting an additional stamp.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
