Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: Sonbarsa Kuer

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Nov 18, 1949
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/459473

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Civil Misc. Case No. 335 of 1946
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Civil
Acts & sections
Stamp Act, 1899 - Sections 57

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Sonbarsa Kuer

Advocate Gopalji Mehrotra, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Stamp Act, 1899 - Sections 57
Reported In
AIR1950All319

Excerpt

- .....is contained in a letter from the personal assistant to the junior secretary to the board of revenue, united provinces, to the registrar of this court. this letter states that the writer has been directed to make a reference under section 57, stamp act for the orders of this court. at one place it mentions that the board of revenue is inclined to hold the view that the case falls under article 7, stamp act. but the actual statement of the case by the board or any opinion expressed by it thereon has not been forwarded to this court.3. the power to make a reference under section 57 has been conferred upon the chief controlling revenue authority and not upon any ministerial officer subordinate to it. such references are not of an administrative character but are judicial in nature and it is only when the chief controlling revenue authority after applying a judicial mind to the consideration of the questions before it requires the opinion of this court, that it may make a reference under that section. in that case it is required to submit to this court its own opinion along with a statement of the case and to state the questions which this court is required to answer. there is, however, nothing to indicate that the questions which we are required to answer were ever judicially considered by the board as indicated above.4. references to this court are made under different provisions of law, one of such provisions being section 66, income-tax act, 1922 (xi [11] of 1922). a reference under the income-tax act is not made by a ministerial officer of the tribunal itself which states the case under its own signatures for the opinion of this court. in our opinion, a reference under section 57, stamp act should be made much in the same way. these references are governed by statute and the jurisdiction of the court in that behalf may be invoked only in the manner provided by statute and not otherwise. a reference by a ministerial officer is improper.5. we accordingly decline to.....

Full Judgment

Harish Chandra, J.

1. This case purports to be a reference Under Section 57, Stamp Act, 1899 (II [2] of 1899) according to which the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority may, in certain circumstances, state a case and refer it to the High Court with its own opinion thereon. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in this Province is the Board of Revenue.

2. The papers submitted to this Court, however, do not contain any order of reference by the Board or any opinion expressed by it on the case which has been referred to this Court. The reference is contained in a letter from the Personal Assistant to the Junior Secretary to the Board of Revenue, United Provinces, to the Registrar of this Court. This letter states that the writer has been directed to make a reference Under Section 57, Stamp Act for the orders of this Court. At one place it mentions that the Board of Revenue is inclined to hold the view that the case falls under Article 7, Stamp Act. But the actual statement of the case by the Board or any opinion expressed by it thereon has not been forwarded to this Court.

3. The power to make a reference Under Section 57 has been conferred upon the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and not upon any ministerial officer subordinate to it. Such references are not of an administrative character but are judicial in nature and it is only when the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority after applying a judicial mind to the consideration of the questions before it requires the opinion of this Court, that it may make a reference under that section. In that case it is required to submit to this Court its own opinion along with a statement of the case and to state the questions which this Court is required to answer. There is, however, nothing to indicate that the questions which we are required to answer were ever judicially considered by the Board as indicated above.

4. References to this Court are made under different provisions of law, one of such provisions being Section 66, Income-tax Act, 1922 (XI [11] of 1922). A reference under the Income-tax Act is not made by a ministerial officer of the tribunal itself which states the case under its own signatures for the opinion of this Court. In our opinion, a reference Under Section 57, Stamp Act should be made much in the same way. These references are governed by statute and the jurisdiction of the Court in that behalf may be invoked only in the manner provided by statute and not otherwise. A reference by a ministerial officer is improper.

5. We accordingly decline to entertain the reference which in our opinion has not been made by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority itself in the manner provided by law. Let the papers be returned.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial