VANDOOR JUPITOR CHITS P LTD Vs. PATHUMMAKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case a question has arised whether the records produced by the respondent are in admissible in evidence for want of stamp. The controversy is whether these records come within the definition of "receipt" under S. 2 (23) of the Indian Stamp Act. S. 2 (23) is in the following terms: " (23) "receipt" includes any note, memorandum or writing (a) whereby any money, or any bill of exchange, cheque or promissory not is acknowledged to have been received, or (b) whereby any other moveable property is acknowledged to have been received in satisfaction of a debt, or (c) whereby any debt or demand, or any part of a debt or demand, is acknowledged to have been satisfied or discharged, or (d) which signifies or imports any such acknowledgment, and whether the same is or is not signed with the name of any person:" The records produced can be classified into two groups. The first group consists of records entitled "receipts" with the following particulars: RECEIPT Group No. Date Ticket No. Name -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------? Particulars Rs. Ps. Amount actually subscribed CASH/cheque TOTAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total amount in words Rupees ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cashier manager and the other group consists of records described as "bills" containing the following particulars: Bill No. Date Name --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------? G. No. S. No. Rupees only Cash Bill Collector Each record in these two groups of records relate to more than Rs. 20. The first group will certainly come within the definition of "receipt" for the record itself is called a "receipt" and the particulars constitute an acknowledgment of receipt of money from the subscriber towards the kuri transaction. So, as these records are not stamped, they are not admissible in evidence except as provided for in S. 35 proviso (b)of the Act. The records in the other group, no doubt, are not described as "receipts". Each record purports to be a bill issued by the Bill collector. The name of the person to whom it is issued is mentioned and the group number of the kuri and the serial number given to the subscriber and the cash received by the Bill Collector are all stated and the Bill Collector has signed it. According to the respondents, there is no acknowledgment that any amount is received and a bill is generally understood as only a demand. But, the definition of "receipt" is wide enough to cover not only a writing whereby receipt of money is expressly acknowledged or a debt or demand is expressly acknowledged as satisfied or discharged, but also any writing which signifies or imports any such acknowledgment. In the context of the kuri transaction and the procedure followed by the company this writing, though characterised as a "bill", really signifies or imports an acknowledgment of receipt of money Bill Collectors are engaged by the company to meet the various subscribers and receive the amounts paid by them, and acknowledge in writing the amount paid. Hence, I hold that the records in this group of records are also not admissible in evidence unless they are stamped as provided for in art. 53 of the Stamp Act. An argument was advanced that this group of records will come under the exemption (h) mentioned in Art. 53 of the Stamp Act. That exemption relates to receipts 'given for money or securities for money deposited in the hands of any banker to be accounted for'. It is difficult to characterise this company as a banker. "banker" is defined in Sec. 2 (1) thus: "banker" includes a bank and any person acting as a banker". The business of banking, strictly speaking, is the receipt of money from the public for the purpose of lending or investment to be repaid on demand or otherwise or when drawn on by cheque, draft or otherwise. It also includes the payment of bills, discounting of bills and the custody of valuables. No doubt, in a chitty business money is received from the subscribers and paid to the subscribers who have either prized the kuri or who become entitled to receive the amounts subscribed on the termination of the chitty or kuri. But, this is not a banking business as commonly understood. Hence, this group of records do not come under the exemption (h) mentioned in art. 53.

(2.) FOR these reasons I hold that the two groups of records mentioned above are liable to stamp duty under Art. 53 of the Stamp Act and as they are not stamped they can be admitted in evidence only in the manner provided for in S. 35 proviso (b ). That means, each of the records can be admitted in evidence only if one rupee is paid as penalty for each. Ordered accordingly. . .