Home  /  Indian Stamp Act  /  Section 60

Section 60: Statement of case by other Courts to High Court

Indian Stamp Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1899
Section 59 All 78 Sections Schedule I (Arts 1–65) Section 61

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 60

Section 60 establishes a direct reference mechanism empowering subordinate civil and revenue courts to state a case to the High Court whenever doubt arises regarding the stamp duty chargeable on an instrument produced in pending proceedings.

  • Jurisdiction of Subordinate Courts to Refer: Any civil or revenue court other than a High Court may, if it entertains doubt as to the amount of duty chargeable on an instrument produced before it, draw up a statement of the case and refer it to the High Court.
  • Court's Duty to Frame Questions and Facts: The referring court must set forth its own opinion, frame the specific legal questions regarding instrument classification, and state the relevant facts and contractual clauses.
  • Stay of Final Decree or Judgment: The court may proceed with the trial of the suit or proceeding, but is statutorily prohibited from passing a final decree or order until the High Court renders its decision on the reference.
  • Alternative to Section 35 Impounding: Section 60 provides a judicial alternative to premature impounding under Section 35, allowing the trial court to seek authoritative High Court guidance before imposing severe penalties.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2001) 5 SCC 519: The Supreme Court recognized that statutory reference procedures enable trial courts to resolve bona fide judicial uncertainty regarding fiscal liabilities without prejudicing the progress of trial.
  • K.B. Saha & Sons (P) Ltd. v. A.M. Chakrabarty, (2008) 8 SCC 564: The Supreme Court emphasized that trial courts must exercise rigorous scrutiny when questions of document admissibility and stamp duty are raised, using reference mechanisms where statutory interpretations diverge.
  • Ramanathan v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1972 Mad 224: The High Court affirmed that the trial court's reference power under Section 60 is discretionary and must be exercised only when a genuine, intractable legal doubt exists, not at the mere behest of a litigant seeking trial delay.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

In high-stakes commercial litigation before a Commercial Court where the opposite party objects to the admissibility of a complex hybrid agreement (e.g. consortium pact with license covenants) and demands a 10x penalty under Section 35, move a formal application under Section 60. Persuade the Court that genuine legal ambiguity exists on stamp classification, requesting a stated case to the High Court while allowing trial evidence to proceed.

Section 59 All 78 Sections Schedule I (Arts 1–65) Section 61