Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)
Nathulal vs Ramesh on 30 July, 2018 cites

Hariom Agrawal vs Prakash Chand Malviya on 8 October, 2007

In view of proviso (a) to S.35 of the Act, if the original instrument is actually before the Court of law, the defect of deficiency in stamp, with penalty provision may be ordered to be cured for permission to rely upon the said document. Therefore, secondary evidence, either by way of oral evidence of the contents of unstamped instrument, or, copy of it governed by S.63 of the Evidence Act, would not W.P. No.7622/2016 3 fulfill the requirement of the proviso which enjoins upon the Authority to receive in evidence the original instrument itself and nothing else. Therefore, a party can only be allowed to rely upon a document which is an instrument within the meaning of S.2(14) of the Act for the purpose of S.35 and there is no scope for inclusion of copy of an instrument for the purposes of the Act. Hence, as S.35 deals with original instruments and not their copies, S.36 cannot be interpreted so as to allow secondary evidence of an instrument as the word "Instrument" used in S.36 has the same meaning as in S.35 for the reason that word "Instrument" has been defined in dictionary clause S.2(14) of the Act. Therefore, the exception carved out in S.36 as against the rigor of S.35 is only in respect of such original "instruments" which are insufficiently and unduly stamped and admitted in evidence without objection at the initial stage of suit or proceedings and not otherwise. In other words, if the objection to admissibility of an "instrument" is based upon the same being insufficiently stamped or unstamped, party is required to object to reception of such instrument in evidence when it is first tendered, but, after the instrument is admitted, then at later stages, no objection of that nature can be raised. Applicability of S.36 does not extend to secondary evidence adduced or sought to be adduced in proof of the contents of a document which is unstamped or insufficiently stamped (Jupudi Kesava Rao Vs. Pulavarthi Venkata Subbarao, AIR 1971 SC 1070 and Hariom Agrawal Vs. Prakash Chand Malviya, AIR 2008 SC 166, referred to)."
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 59 - P P Naolekar - Full Document
1   2 Next