Satyendranath vs Sunderdas

Nevaskar, J.—An affidavit was filed in this Court by one Bansidhar Joshi, who is a clerk of Shri Zavar Advocate, giving reasons as to why there was delay in payment of process for service of notice to the respondent although there was an order dated 3-7-1957 passed by the Court requiring the appellant to do so within two days. The affidavit was accompanied by a Court-fee ticket of one rupee. The question raised in this connection was whether the affidavit in question was duly stamped in view of provisions of Schedule I., Article 4 of the Indian Stamp Act. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that in fact the affidavit did not require any stamp under the aforesaid provision inasmuch as it fell under Exemption Clause (b) of that Article. Reliance was placed in this connection upon the decisions reported in In Re the Application of (sic) I. L. R. 12 Bom. 278 and (Full Bench) Shri Kishan Das vs. Mohammad Nasir A. I. R. 1947 All. 37.

In my opinion the contention of the appellant is correct and ought to be upheld.

Art. 4, Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act is as follows : -

Affidavit, including an affirmation or declaration in the case of persons by law allowed to affirm or declare instead of swearing.--One Rupee,

Exemptions : -

(a)...

(b) for the immediate purpose of being filed or used in any Court or before the officer of any Court; or

(c)...

It is clear from the wording of the Exemptions Clause that where an affidavit is made, the immediate purpose of which is to use it in any Court, no stamp is payable therefor.

The word ''immediate'' is used as an adjective and qualifies the noun, ''purpose'' and in the context it means ''direct'' or ''not remote'' It is possible to conceive of an affidavit which may have both a direct and one or more remote purposes. Exemption is intended for that kind of affidavit whose proximate object is to file it or use it in a Court of Law. Even where there is some space interval between the place where the affidavit is made and the place Where it is filed, it will still be exempt if the purpose of making the affidavit be to file or use it in a Court. Existence of some time lag between the point of time when the affidavit is made and when it is filed in a Court does not very much matter if its immediate object remains the same. Where there is an unreasonable interval of time that may some times have a bearing on the question Whether the purpose is or is not remote but what is material is to see whether the affidavit was primarily intended for the use before a court of Jaw. It might be suggested that if that be the correct interpretation practically all affidavits filed in a court of law will be exempt from stamp duty. The answer to this is that the Stamp Act does not intend to charge such a document. Even the Court-Fees Act which provides for levy of Court-fees upon several documents filed in Courts of Law does not provide for any levy upon affidavits. In some cases under the Rules framed by the High Courts a certain fee is charged for administering oath or affirmation to the deponent and such a fee is to be paid by means of Court-fee stamps affixed to the affidavit.

In In Re. The Application of Sheshamma, I. L. R. 12 Bom. 278, an affidavit was made before the clerk of the Court at Sirsi when it was required to be filed in the Court at Kanara. It was held that the purpose was not any the less immediate because of the aforesaid circumstance.

In Shri Kishan Das vs. Mohammad Nasir, A. I. R. 1947 All 37, an affidavit was sworn in Bombay on 24-1-1942 for the purpose of its being filed in a Court at Meerut (in U. P.) in connection with a proceeding pending before the latter Court, The affidavit was actually filed in the Court at Meerut on 12-5-1942. In spite of such an interval of space and time the purpose was held to be immediate.

The cases fully support what I have stated above.

In the present case no question of space interval or time lag is involved. There was delay in payment of process. The Court asked the appellant to explain the delay. An affidavit of the clerk of the appellant''s Advocate was filed on 23-7-1957 in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 16-7-1957 requiring the appellant to file an affidavit within a week to explain that delay. The immediate purpose of the affidavit in this case was to use it in this Court. The document is therefore not chargeable under Art. 4 of the Stamp Act as it falls under Exemption (b) of that Article. The document is accompanied by court-fee stamp needed for administering oath as required by the Rules and is quite in order.

Dixit, J.

I agree that the affidavit in question is one falling within the exemption (b) to Art. 4, Schedule I of the Stamp Act. In my opinion for the purposes of exemption (b), the object sought to be achieved by the making of an affidavit or declaration is wholly irrelevant. What is essential is that the immediate purpose of making the affidavit or declaration must be one of filing or using it in any court or before any officer of any court. That being so the word ''immediate'' in exemption (b) must be taken as indicating proximity of time as well as directness of the purpose mentioned therein. The question whether an affidavit or declaration is one made for the immediate purpose specified in exemption (b) will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. I have no doubt that in the present case the affidavit made is one which satisfies the conditions of exemption (b).