SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
  1. Home
  2. / Subject
  3. /Minor Act and SC Rules

TRIDESHWAR DAYAL V. MAHESHWAR DAYAL (1990) 1 SCC 357

TRIDESHWAR DAYAL V. MAHESHWAR DAYAL (1990) 1 SCC 357

FACT

  • A dispute arose between the appellants and respondent 1, who are members of a family, which was referred to an arbitrator.
  • The arbitrator made an award on October 9, 1973, and filed it before the civil court for confirmation.
  • The civil court rejected the prayer to confirm the award on March 18, 1976, which was later confirmed by the High Court on July 8, 1981.
  • Respondent 1 then applied before the Collector for impounding the award and realizing the stamp duty and penalty.
  • The Collector allowed respondent 1's prayer on July 15, 1983, leading to an appeal by the appellants to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act.
  • The Authority set aside the Collector's order, which was challenged by respondent 1 in a writ case before the High Court.
  • The High Court also doubted the power of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to entertain the appellants’ application order Section 56 of the Act.
  • The judgement of HC is challenged in present appeal.

ISSUE

  • Whether the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority had the power to interfere with the Collector's order regarding the impounding of the award under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act.

RULE

  • The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority has the power to interfere with the Collector's order under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act if the order is found to be erroneous

HELD

  • The appellants argued that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority had the power to correct an erroneous order of the Collector under Section 56 of the Act.
  • The Court agreed with the appellants that the Authority had the jurisdiction to interfere with the Collector's order if found erroneous.
  • However, the Court found no defect in the Collector's order directing the realization of stamp duty.
  • It was contended by the appellants that respondent 1 had no locus standi to move the Collector for impounding the award, but the Court held that the orders of the Collector were passed in furtherance of the civil court's direction.
  • The Court rejected the argument that the orders of the Collector were time-barred, stating that they were follow-up steps in pursuance of the civil court's direction and not subject to limitation.
  • Lastly, the Court declined to consider respondent 1's interest in reopening the question of making the award a rule of the court, stating that it was not relevant to the present proceeding for the realization of the duty.
  • The appeal was disposed of accordingly.