Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.19 seconds)
Documents citing Suresh Kumar vs Satish Mehra And Anr. on 6 August, 2012

Smt. Sunila Jain vs Sh. Shashi Kant Sharma on 11 November, 2019

75. The learned counsel for defendant stated that similarly the judgment passed in Suresh Kumar v. Satish Mehra & Ors. 24 is not applicable to the present case, as the same pertains to a document on which adequate stamp duty had not been paid can be relied upon for collateral purpose. The learned counsel further submitted that the said judgment is for non stamp duty but it does not cover the aspect of registration. The counsel for the defendant concluded on the note that the plaintiff has failed to prove her case and it has come in evidence 20 2012(6) RAJ 633 (Del) 21 (2006) 11 SCC 331 22.2007 I ILR (Delhi) 706
Delhi District Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sharad Bhansali & Anr. vs Mukesh Aggarwal & Anr. on 24 July, 2024

14. Mr. Paul cites, in support of his submissions, paras 2 and 6 of Suresh Kumar v. Satish Mehra14 and para 2 of Vinod Kumar v. Ajit Singh15, both of which have been rendered by learned Single Judges of this Court, paras 9 and 10 of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh v. Vinod Kumar16, which was the appeal preferred against Vinod Kumar v. Ajit Singh and paras 2, 3 and 9 of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Asas Investment P. Ltd. v. Collector of Stamps17, the SLP against which was dismissed 14 2010 (116) DRJ 364 15 2013 (138) DRJ 324 16 2014 SCC OnLine Del 192 17 2012 (129) DRJ 253 (DB) Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified ARB.A. 2/2023 Page 8 of 20 Digitally Signed Digitally Signed By:ROHIT BARARIA By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date:24.07.2024 Signing Date:24.07.2024 16:42:06 16:41:15 by the Supreme Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Delhivery Ltd. vs Hanel Logistics Llp on 22 August, 2023

"14. Primarily, the liability of an instrument to stamp duty arises on execution. Execution in India itself made the instrument liable to stamp duty under Section 3(a) as it stood before the amendment. Under Section 3(c) execution out of India, where the instrument relates to property situated or any matter or thing done or to be done in India together with the further fact that the 7 See: Nilesh Shantilal Tank v. Jairaj Devidas, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 902; Vivek Mehta v. Karrs Designs & Developments, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 10634; Supreme Mega Constructions LLP v. Nitin Pramod Samel, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 20439; Suresh Kumar v. Satish Mehra, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 1144 (petition under Section 34 of the Act); Order dated 11.01.2017 passed in AP No. 701 of 2011 by the Calcutta High Court; Order dated 26.04.2017 passed in AP No.208 of 2017 by the Calcutta High Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 1 - S Datta - Full Document

M/S Celebration Hotels & Resorts(P) Ltd vs M/S Sartaj Hotels Apartments & Vilas Pvt ... on 10 June, 2024

4. Learned counsel for the defendants, has placed reliance on Shabbir Ahmad S. Khan vs. Abdul Hameed Khan Matawan and Anr., 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 5715; Avinash Kumar Chauhan vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra, (2009) 2 SCC 532; Suresh Kumar vs. Satish Mehra & Anr., 2010 (116) DRJ 364; Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. Dilip Construction Company, (1969) 1 SCC 597; N.N. Global Mercantile Private Limited vs. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 495; Suraj Lamp And Industries Private Limited (2) through Director vs. State of Haryana And Another, (2012) 1 SCC 656; Rasheeda Siddiqui vs. Mustafa Aleem Siddiqui & Anr., 2011 (126) DRJ 682 and In Re: Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, 2023 SCC OnLine SC, 1666.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - N B Krishna - Full Document

M/S Samara India Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors on 31 October, 2023

In CS No.84 of 2017 M/s Samara India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & ors. Page no.35 this regard, reliance is placed upon the following case laws: Suresh Kumar V. Satish Mehra and Anr. 2012 SCC OnlineDel 4091, Javer Chand vs. Pukhraj Surana AIR 1961 SC 1655. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has further submitted that even apart from the aforesaid lease deeds, there was other evidence to prove the factum of the lease between the plaintiff and the defendants no. 3 to 9. It is submitted that merely because the lease deeds were unstamped and unregistered, the same would not come in the way of the Court to determine whether there was in fact the lease otherwise than through such deeds.
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri B.L. Sachdeva vs Mr. Vipul Rekhi on 4 May, 2013

It was similarly held in 2012 VI AD (Delhi) 321 Suit No. 73/12 Sh. B.L. Sachdeva Vs. Mr. Vipul Rekhi 11/21 Suresh Kumar versus Satish Mehra and Anr. wherein the judgment of Javer Chand was relied on. The judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Suraj Bhan's case (supra) is distinguishable on facts since the execution of the document therein was not disputed and in those circumstances the document came to be marked as an exhibit, it was held that the mere marking of the document as an exhibit would not be regarded as it being admitted in evidence.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1