Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.90 seconds)
Documents citing Miss. Sandra Lesley Anna Bartels vs Miss. P Gunavathy on 29 November, 2012

N.S.Rama Devi, vs V. Chitti Babu, on 10 May, 2024

In Miss Sandra Lesley Anna Bartels vs. Miss. P. Gunavath, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court had taken the view that under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short ‗the Stamp Act'), an insufficiently stamped instrument would require to be impounded the moment the insufficient stamp on the instrument is brought to the notice of the Court. Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar would submit that a logical corollary of the judgment would be that no unstamped document can be returned even after disposal of the suit without the same being impounded as the duty to impound the document arises the moment the document/instrument is presented to the Court.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - R R Rao - Full Document

Suman W/O Suresh Palankar, vs Vinayaka S/O Nagappa Palankar, on 14 August, 2013

19. A Division Bench of this Court has also examined Sections 33 to 37 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and has held that there are two different circumstances under the stamp Act for impounding a document. After considering the statutory provisions of the Act and case laws thereon, it has been held in the case of MISS. SANDRA LESLEY ANNA BARTELS VS. MISS.
Karnataka High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 2 - A Kumar - Full Document

M J Babu vs Hanumantha Reddy on 21 April, 2022

Even if the objection is not raised at the time of marking of the document, it does not mean that it takes away the obligation of the Court to impound the document under Section 33 of the Act. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the document has been accepted without objection and no notice has been given to the petitioner seeking explanation. In this regard, it is relevant to the refer to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of MISS. SANDRA LESLEY ANNA BARTELS (supra) at paragraphs 11 to 13 of the judgment has observed thus:
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Bangalore Ice Factory vs Sri B S Venkatram on 24 April, 2013

In the case of Miss Sandra Lesley Anna Bartels vs. Miss P. Gunavathy, AIR 2013 Kar 52, after considering the provisions of Ss.33 and 34 of the Act and the decisions 18 in the cases of Lakshminarayanachar vs. Narayan and another, 1969 (2) MLJ 299), K. Dinesh Vs. Kumaraswamy- W.P.No.10441/2008 decided on 30th August 2010 and S. Suresh (supra), in the matter of impounding insufficiently stamped document, where it comes to the notice of the court and the course of action which should be taken by a Court, it has been held as follows :-
Karnataka High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 2 - A N Gowda - Full Document

Mr R Mahendra Kumar Shah vs Mrs Anuradha Ostwal on 5 July, 2018

16. It is further contended that looking into the nature of the Act being one to penalize evasion of duty, an interpretation favouring doing away with duty is not permissible. Reliance has been placed by the 13 respondents to this Court's decision in the case of MISS. SANDRA LESLEY ANNA BARTELS v. MISS.P.GUNAVATHY reported in ILR 2013 KAR 368 wherein, in para 12 of the decision it is held that under Section 33 of the Act, once the document which is insufficiently stamped comes to the notice of the Court, there has to be an order impounding the said document though it is a discretion of the Court to exercise its powers under Sections 33 and 34 of the Act and that the Court ought not to wait till the document is tendered in evidence.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S S Yadav - Full Document
1   2 3 Next