Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
While interpreting a provision of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, the Supreme Court bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Ajay Rastogi commented, while observing that the trial courts have no discretion in levying the penalty after admitting insufficiently stamped document,” This provision is for purpose of maintaining a uniformity in imposing a fixed penalty of 10 times without adverting to any adjudicatory process regarding quantifying the quantum of penalty.”
The case of Gangappa v Fakeerappa was, however, closed by approving the direction of the trial court for payment of entire deficit duty and double the penalty after it was remarked, “The object and purpose for such contradistinction in the provision and power is not far to seek. Section 33 applies to every person having by law or consent of parties’ authority to receive evidence, and every person in charge of a public office. Thus, Section 33 covers a host of authorities, persons before whom instruments are filed. The legislative scheme does not indicate any distinction between a court receiving an insufficiently stamped instrument in evidence and other authorities. All have to impose penalty of 10 times of the duty or deficit portion, if it exceeds rupees five. This provision is for purpose of maintaining uniformity in imposing a fixed penalty of 10 times without adverting to any adjudicatory process regarding quantifying the quantum of penalty.”
86540
103860
630
114
59824