Delhi District Court
M/S Sumit Associates vs M/S Power Engineers on 17 April, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. ASHA MENON, ADJ,
TIS HAZARI, DELHI.
S. NO. :309/04
M/s Sumit Associates ........Plaintiff
Vs.
M/s Power Engineers .........Defendant
ORDER
This order will dispose of an application moved by the defendant Under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act.
I have perused the record and I have heard the arguments of the counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant.
Stage of this case is the recording of evidence on behalf of plaintiff. Two letters have been brought on record by the plaintiff through PW-1 Sh. Narender Singh exhibited as PW- 1/15 and Ex. PW-1/ 16. The present application has been moved by the defendant submitting that these two documents were alleged acknowledgments dated April 2, 2002, July 3, 2002. It is submitted that since acknowledgments were not duly stamped the same could not be received in evidence and acted upon. Hence it is prayed that Under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act these two documents be taken off the record.
2
In reply the plaintiff has submitted that the application was a frivolous one. It is further submitted that the onus had been on the defendant to have duly stamped the documents before issuing the acknowledgments. Defendant could not now raise such pleas. It is further submitted relying on clause (b) of section 35 of the Stamp Act that the two documents were admissible in evidence against the person who had issued them and who should have duly stamped them and that the only penalty that could be imposed on the person tendering the documents was a penalty of Rs. 1/- each . Thus while on the one hand the Ld. learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the letters were not liable to be stamped, he also submits that the maximum repercussion would be that the penalty of Rs. 1 was to be paid in terms of clause (b) Section 35 (2) of the Indian Stamp Act.
Since the plaintiff has through the witnesses referred to both these letters as acknowledgments, it is clear the same are liable to be stamped in terms of Section 35(2) (b). The matter can be disposed of directing the plaintiff to affix the appropriate stamp on the documents, since the confirmation/ acknowledgments were issued by the defendant to the plaintiff and the plaintiff claims to be in possession of these confirmation letters / acknowledgments as creditors and it was for the 3 defendant to have stamped the same.
Subject to the affixing of the appropriate stamp of Rs. 1 each on the two documents the documents shall be received in evidence and will stand exhibited as PW-1/15 and Ex. PW- 1/16.
The application is accordingly disposed of. Announced in the open court on this 16th day of April, 2008. (ASHA MENON) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, DELHI.