Gujarat understood that this debate could not stop quickly and tabled an amendment to levy stamp duty on different transactions and on different issues. Thus, whereas prior to 2007, a separate stamp duty was only due for various issues after 2007, a separate stamp duty was due both for different issues and for different transactions. The High Court held that the State of Gujarat was not entitled to recover additional stamp duty on the basis of its exercise of legislative intent under Section 5 of the Act. The Court found that stamp duty was exercised on instruments and not on transactions. Therefore, the only reason why the desired effect was achieved by the execution of a single document with respect to various sets of documents would not allow the public authorities to justify the conclusion that a single document is inscribed in section 5 of the Act. It was SBI alone who had the power to impose the document against the respondent. The High Court also found that there was only one instrument that created a borrower`s mortgage for the benefit of a securities trustee, and that such a relationship between the borrower and the security trustee is independent of the relationship between the borrower and the lending banks. The relationship between the borrower and the agent is that of a mortgagors and a borrower. By resuming the indian Trust Act and after the creation of another valid trust deed and the payment of stamp duty, the State Bank of India became the security agent for the lending banks and considered the mortgage for and for those beneficiaries. Therefore, no separate or distinct fact or transaction is created by the instrument concerned, either fictitiously or by other means. Therefore, the applicant is Mortgagor and S.B.I.
as agent of the mortgage. The instrument does not include “different issues” or “different transactions” to attract Section 5 of the Act. The Court found in the document in question that the State Bank of India is the sole lender under the instrument and that no rights to the mortgage property were created for the benefit of secured parties or others. We believe that the case of coastal Gujarat should, at best, be treated as an exception. This case may not be the norm because different credit documents have been executed with a single mortgage deed. In most cases of syndicated credit, there is a single agreement on which the Indian Bankers` Association draft was published, and in these cases the Supreme Court decision is not applicable, as there is no similar provision of the law that requires a “different transaction” in countries other than Gujarat. Nor does the Supreme Court`s interpretation of Benthall in this case appear to be in its place either. In the Benthall case, the entire Bank of the Supreme Court had held that a person`s delegation of power in his personal capacity, as well as a representative quality, was exactly the same, as if different persons were involved in the exercise of power in cases that have nothing to do with each other. In that case, therefore, the Supreme Court held that, in the absence of a community of interest between the personal estate of the executor and the property transferred to him, they must be considered separate cases.
In other words, the Benthall case deals with a situation in which one person is in two different functions for two different issues in the context of an instrument. In the case of Benthall, there are clearly two separate transactions or cases; However, it is not possible to say in the same way for an instrument under which a guarantee is created solely for the benefit of a security agent.