Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Instrument not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc.—No instrument chargeable with duly shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence; or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped: Provided that — (a) any such instrument not being an instrument chargeable with a duty not exceeding ten naye paise only, or a bill of exchange or promissory note, shall, subject to all just exceptions, be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, or, in the case of an instrument insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty, together with a penalty of five rupees, or, when ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof exceed five rupees, Or a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion: (b) where any person from whom a stamped receipt could have been demanded, has given an unstamped receipt and such receipt, if stamped, would be admissible in evidence against him, then such receipt shall be admitted in evidence against him on payment of a penalty of one rupee by the person tendering it, . (c) where a contract or agreement of any kind is effected by correspondence Sec. 36 ] Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [ 97 consisting of two or more letters and any one of the letters bears the proper stamp, the contract or agreement shall be deemed to be duly stamped; (d) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in evidence in any proceeding in a Criminal Court, other than a proceeding under Chapter XIl or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898)'; (e) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in any Court when such instrument has been executed by or on behaif of the Government, or where it bears the certificate of the Collector as provided by section 32 or any other provision of this Act. Comments and Case-law [Unless a document is properly stamped as is provided under section 35, it cannot be permitted to be used even for collateral purpose. A collateral purpose is included in the expansion “any purpose" as contemplated under section 35. Mahendra Narayan Choudhary vs. Sukhdev Choudhary, 1970 PLJR (N.O.C.) iii. A promissory note which is not duly stamped is inadmissible in evidence but the creditor who has advanced the loan is not precluded from pursuing his ordinary legal remedy of enforcing repayment by a suit based on a original cause of action. P.C. Gopinathan Nair vs. P. P. A. Pillai, AIR 1991 Ker 16. This section operates as a bar to an unstamped document, instrument being admitted or being acted upon. M/s Wilson & Co. (Pvt.) Lid. vs. Kslokavinayagam, AIR 1992 Madras 100. In an arbitration case the defect in the award can be cured by impounding the document and after the defect is removed, it can be brought on record and made a rule of the Court as it is not a permanent bar of the power of the Couri to make such an award rule of the court even if the defect regarding the stamp is cured by the procedure under the stamp Act. ibid. Limitation Act, 1963-Article 136-Legislative mandate as sanctioned u/r 136 can not be kept in abeyance unless the self same legislation makes a provision therefor by the passing of a final decree (Order XX, Rule 18, CPC), the right stand crystalized and it is only thereafter its enforceability can be had though not otherwise- undoubtedly section 2(15) includes a decree of partition and section 35 lays down a bar in the matter of unstamped or insufficient stamp being admitted in evidence or being acted upon but that does not mean that the prescribed period of limitation shall remain suspended until the stamp paper is furnished and the partition decree is drawn thereon and subsequently cigned by the judge enforceability of the decree can not be the subject matter of section 35 neither the limitation can be said to be under suspension-time (limitation) does not stop running at the instance of any individual unless it has some statutory sanction. Hameed Joharan vs. Abdul Salam. 2002(1) PLUR (SC) 5. Document required to be stamped but not stamped cannot be used even for collateral purpose. Mahendra Narayan Choudhary vs. Sukhdev Choudhary, 1970 PLJR (NOC) iii. Court not debarred from making an avard a rule of the court after defect in the award, as regards stamps, is removed. Pradip Tracing Co. vs. State of Bihar, 1974 PLJR 235. Even though there is no prohibition u/s 49 of Registration Act to receive an unregistered document in evidence for collateral purpose. Bul the document so tendered should be duly stamped or should comply with requirements of Section 35. Avinash Kumar Chauhan vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra, 2009(1) Supreme 58.)