Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Section 35: Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc
No instrument chargeable with duty 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 [shall] be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, or, in the case of any 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 exceeds five rupees, of 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 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 XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (V 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 behalf of the Government, or where it bears the certificate of the Collector as provided by section 32 or any other provision of this Act.
State amendments to this section
Uttar Pradesh
Amendment of section 35.—In section 35 of the principal Act, in the proviso in clause (d), for the words and figures Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1898, the words and figures sections 125 to 128 and sections 145 to 148 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be substituted.
[Vide Uttar Pradesh Act 6 of 1980, s. 7]
Amendment of section 35. In section 35 of the principal Act, in clause (a) of the proviso for the words five rupees. or, when ten times the amount of the proper duty of deficient portion thereof exceeds five rupees, of a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion: the following words shall be substituted, namely :—
a sum equal to ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof ;
[Vide Uttar Pradesh Act 22 of 1998, s. 3]
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 15 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 35
-
Seetharama Shetty v. Monappa Shetty
Scope of Sections 33, 34, 37, 39 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957; whether the agreement of sale dated 29.06.1999, with a recital on delivery of possession to the appellant, conforms to the definition of conveyance…
-
N N Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2023) 7
The issue at hand arose in the context of three statutes; the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Stamp Act imposes duty on “instruments”.…
-
Vijay v. Union of India & Ors.
Whether the bar of admissibility created by s.35, Stamp Act 1899 applies to the agreement(s) to sell dtd. 04.02.1 988 executed by the parties; can a copy of a document be adduced as secondary evidence when the original…
- M/s N. N. GLOBAL MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/s
- Intercontinental Hotels Group (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
- M/S. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. & Others
- Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. Coastal Marine Constructions & Engineering Ltd.
- Sita Ram Bhama v. Ramvatar Bhama
- Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd. and Etc.
- Yellapu Uma Maheswari &Anr. v. Buddha Jagadheeswararao & Ors.
- Omprakash v. Laxminarayan & Ors.
- M/S. Sms Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Chandmari Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd.
- Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra
- Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal & Anr.
- Hariom Agrawal v. Prakash Chand Mal Viya
- Shyamal Kumar Roy v. Sushil Kumar Agarwal
- Dr. Chiranji Lal (D) by Lrs. v. Hari Das (D) by Lrs.
- Hameed Joharan (D) and Ors. v. Abdul Salam (D) by Lrs. and Ors.
- The Govt. of Tamil Nadu v. Pv. Enter. Rep. by Scm Jamaludeen and Ors.