Stamp Act Not Enacted To Arm Litigant With “Weapon Of Technicality”: Delhi High Court

Brief Facts:

The Petitioner had sought cancellation of a sale deed executed by her in favour of the Respondent in an arbitration proceeding. The Respondent filed a counterclaim to recover possession of the said property from the Petitioner who retained its possession. The Arbitrator held the sale deed to be valid and granted possession and mesne profits to the Respondent. On 29.05.2023, an Execution petition was filed.

The Petitioner moved an application under section 35 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899. According to the Petitioner, the award was scribed on non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 500/- and, thus, it was insufficiently stamped. Therefore, it ought to have been impounded by the Court and sent to the Collector for adjudication of proper stamp duty before proceeding any further with the execution petition. The Executing court rejected the application on 05.10.2024. The Petitioner challenged the order dated 5.10.24.

Arguments:

The Respondent submitted that the requisite stamp duty was paid on 25.05.2023. The Executing Court had no reason or occasion to impound it.

The Petitioner submitted that the stamp duty paid was not sufficient. The market value was required to be taken into consideration for paying stamp duty and not the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed.

Observations:

The court held that stamp duty was payable on the value of property and mesne profits, not on the market value of the property on the date of award. The court stated that if the value of the property is not specified in the document, its stamp duty value must be taken to be the price that it could be sold for on the open market.

The court observed that the question of impounding a document would come into play only if the Court found that the document was insufficiently stamped. It held that since the Decree Holder had already paid the requisite stamp duty, there was no requirement of impounding the document.

The court further observed that:

“The Stamp Act is a fiscal measure enacted to secure revenue for the State on certain classes of instruments and it has not been enacted to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality to counter and oppose the case of its adversary.”

Thus, the court dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Punita Bhardwaj vs. Rashmi Juneja

Case number: CM(M) 3640/2024 & CM APPL. 61217-61218/2024

For the Petitioner: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Akshit Sachdeva, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. Vineet Jhanji and Mr. Imran Moulaey, Advocates.

Date of Decision: 18.10.2024