M/S. Saumya Mining Limited vs Srei Equipment Finance Limited on 29 January, 2016
He relies on a judgment in the case of Central Bank of
India - Vs. - Sunil Kumar Paul reported in 1978(2) CLJ 179. The
Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court relied on a notification being
Finance Department No.6 dated 12th September, 1931 and came to a
conclusion that an unattested instrument evidencing an agreement
related to the hypothecation of movable property where such
hypothecation has been made by way of security for the repayment of
moneys advanced or to be advanced by way of loan or of an existing
or further debt is exempted from payment of stamp duty under the
Act of 1899. He submits that the argument advanced by the appellant
that the hypothecation dues are to be stamped in accordance with
Article 40 of Schedule IA of the said Act of 1899 does not take into
consideration the Finance Memo No.6 of 1931, which exempted
hypothecation dues or agreements from any stamp duty.