DWARIKA NATH DEY CHOWDHURY Vs. SAILAJA KANTA MALLICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the learned Munsif, Additional Court of Ranaghat, with regard to certain questions arising upon an execution which has been stayed by the District Judge of Nadia on the judgment-debtor furnishing sufficient security to the satisfaction of the lower Court, and we are asked to decide what duty is payable op such bonds.

(2.) It is suggested by the learned Munsif that no duty is payable under the Stamp Act and that the Court fee of 8 annas is sufficient. But it is obvious that these bonds inuring to the benefit of the Secretary of State or of the parties in the case must be stamped in accordance with the Stamp Act. They are not made by order of the Court within the meaning of Schedule II, Article 6 of the Court Fees Act, and that Act does not appear to apply. They are bonds taken on an order for stay of execution and the parties can furnish them or not as they please. If they do furnish them the stay of execution becomes a matter of indulgence, and the bonds must be stamped according to law.

(3.) The answer to the first question, therefore, is that stamp duty is necessary, not necessarily according to Article 15, Schedule I of the Stamp Act, but to any Article of the Stamp Act which may apply to the particular bond in question; and the answer to the second question is that such bonds cannot be written on plain paper bearing only Court-fee of 8 annas; and the answer to the third question is the same as the first, namely, that it depends upon what duty is leviable under the provisions of the Stamp Act. Teunon, J.