Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.22 seconds)
Documents citing Mahendra vs Ramvilas Shukhla S/O Ramsevak Shukhla ... on 22 August, 2023

Salim vs Sultan Singh @ Sartan Singh on 13 March, 2024

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as insufficient stamp is concerned, the petitioner is ready to pay the deficit stamp duty, for which the Court was required to pass an order under Section 35-A of the Indian Stamp Act as held by this Court in the case of Mahendra v/s Ramvilas Shukla & Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine M.P. 2577 . So far as the issue of non-registration is concerned, that objection is liable to be raised at the time of tendering of this deed in evidence. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not filed the suit for the possession or specific performance of contract treating the agreement as mortgaged, he has filed the suit simply for recovery of money for which agreement was executed, therefore, by virtue this limited prayer in the suit, the agreement is not required to be registered and for the collateral purpose, it can be looked into.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - V Rusia - Full Document

Vijay vs Cholamandlam Investment And Finance ... on 12 August, 2024

7] Shri Suhas Pundlik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out, as the proper stamp duty has already been paid by the respondent in accordance with law, and since the award has come before the district court for its execution only, as has held by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mahendra vs. Ramvilas Shukhla & ors.{M.P.no.3009/2022 (Indore) decided on 22.8.2023} reported as I.L.R. 2024 M.P. 249 that the Court itself is competent to pass the order regarding the stamp duty in the amendment as provided under Section 35 & 40 of the Indian Stamp (M.P. Amendment) Act, 2016. Counsel has also drawn attention of this Court to the amended Sections of the Stamp Act of 1899.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S Abhyankar - Full Document

Smt Jayoti Kiran Dubey vs Mahendra Kumar on 25 March, 2026

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to Section 16 of the Registration Act and amendment thereto submits that this Sauda Chhiti Annexure P-4 should have been written at least on 1% of the consideration amount and unless it was so stamped and registered it could not have been Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 26-03-2026 10:16:09 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8118 2 MP-6177-2025 tendered in evidence. For this he has relied on the order dated 22.08.2023 of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mahendra Vs. Ramvilas Shukla and others 2023 (2) RN 241 and also the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra (2009) 2 SCC 532. On this submission learned counsel assails the impugned order that it is not in accordance with law and prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1