Stamping of foreign-executed promissory notes requires first negotiation in India; suit alone does not trigger Section 19.

Section 19 of the Indian Stamp Act was held inapplicable because the promissory notes, though executed and endorsed outside India, were not first presented, endorsed, transferred, or otherwise negotiated in India; the mere filing of a suit on them did not trigger further stamping. The objection based on insufficient stamping therefore failed. The classification of the instruments as inland or foreign under the Negotiable Instruments Act was also held not to determine the applicability of the Singapore Money-lenders Act, which required separate consideration. The appellate order was upheld, the appeals were dismissed, and the Money-lenders Act issue was left open for fresh trial-level consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a promissory note executed and endorsed outside India, but sued upon in India, required further stamping under Section 19 of the Indian Stamp Act. (ii) Whether such instruments could be treated as inland or foreign instruments for deciding the applicability of the Singapore Money-lenders Act.

Issue (i): Whether a promissory note executed and endorsed outside India, but sued upon in India, required further stamping under Section 19 of the Indian Stamp Act.

Analysis: Section 19 applies where the first holder in India presents, endorses, transfers, or otherwise negotiates a bill of exchange or promissory note drawn or made outside India. On the facts, the instruments were not presented for acceptance or payment, nor endorsed, transferred, or otherwise negotiated in India. The statutory requirement of affixing and cancelling the proper stamp in India was therefore not attracted.

Conclusion: The instruments did not require further stamping under Section 19 of the Indian Stamp Act, and this objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether such instruments could be treated as inland or foreign instruments for deciding the applicability of the Singapore Money-lenders Act.

Analysis: The definitions of inland instrument and foreign instrument under the Negotiable Instruments Act are relevant only for that Act. They did not determine whether a suit in India on a promissory note executed and endorsed in Singapore was barred by the Singapore Money-lenders Act. That question depended on separate considerations and was not concluded by the characterization of the instruments under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Conclusion: The inland or foreign character of the instruments did not decide the applicability of the Singapore Money-lenders Act, and that question was left for the trial Court.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order in favour of the respondent was upheld and the appeals were dismissed, while the question of the Singapore Money-lenders Act was left open for fresh consideration by the trial Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 19 of the Indian Stamp Act is attracted only when a promissory note drawn or made outside India is first dealt with in India in the manner specified by the section; the mere institution of a suit on such an instrument does not trigger that stamping requirement.

---