Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 126 (0.87 seconds)
Documents citing Shyamal Kumar Roy vs Sushil Kumar Agarwal on 31 October, 2006

Sng Developers Limited vs Vardhman Buildtech Private Limited on 7 October, 2022

36. Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 provides that no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence unless such instrument is duly stamped. Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, however, provides for an exception to the said rule. It provides that an instrument cannot be called in question even if not duly stamped, where such instrument has been admitted in evidence. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Shyamal Kumar Roy Vs. Sushil Kumar Agarwal (supra), while dealing with the interpretation of Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, held that if the party has consented to the document being marked as an exhibit, it cannot then object to it on the ground of it being under-stamped. It was held that once the document has been marked as an exhibit and is being used Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR FAO(OS) (COMM) 47/2022 Page 13 of 19 Signing Date:07.10.2022 17:09:40 for the purpose of examination and cross-examination, Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 comes into play.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Smt. Sharda Manaktala vs Sh. Subodh Kumar Gupta on 31 August, 2018

19. The effect of the aforesaid law laid down in Section 36 of the Stamp   Act,   1899  and  the   judgment   of  the  Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   in Shyamal Kumar Roy v Sushil Kumar Aggarwal, (2006) 11 SCC 331, on the facts and circumstances of this case is that since, Sh. Anil Saxena, Ld. Advocate for the  defendant had not raised any objection qua the admission   of   the   rent   agreement   dated   06.02.2013,   Ex.PW1/B,   in evidence, during the examination­in­chief of the plaintiff viz. PW1 Smt. Sharda   Manaktala,   on   17.12.2015,   now   the   defendant   cannot   be permitted   to   plead   before   this   Court   that   the   rent   agreement   dated 06.02.2013, Ex.PW1/B cannot be examined by this Court because it is a document  liable  to be impounded by this Court,  in  exercise of power under Section 33 of the Stamp Act, 1899.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prabir Das & Anr vs Kinu Ram Mondal on 11 April, 2022

Effect of Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, along with Section 33 as amended in the State of West Bengal, was discussed at length by Supreme Court of India in Shyamal Kumar Roy vs. Sushil Kumar Agarwal [(2006) 11 SCC 331]. Deciding on the issue whether an insufficiently stamped development agreement, which was admitted in evidence without objection, was admissible or not, it was observed that Section 36, provides for a "stand alone"
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S Majumdar - Full Document

Swami Satyanand vs Rajiv Ranjan Kumar Singh on 11 June, 2012

Mr. Prabal Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shyamal Kumar Roy vs. Sushil Kumar Agarwal reported in (2006) II Supreme Court Cases 331 for the proposition that the said instrument is not admissible in evidence in view of the fact that the same is inadequately stamped. Since this document has not been marked as exhibit and could not be so in view of a clear bar under Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, the trial Court ought not to have passed such an order.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - S Sen - Full Document

Hema Ram And Anr vs Guman Singh And Anr on 19 March, 2020

In the matter of Shyamal Kumar Roy v. Sushil Kumar Agrawal (supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that Section 36 of Indian Stamp Act, (which is analogous to Section 40 of Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998), provides for a 'stand alone' clause. It categorically prohibits a court of law from reopening a matter with regard to the sufficiency or otherwise of the stamp duty paid on an instrument, in the event the same has been admitted in evidence. Only one exception has been made in this behalf, the provisions contained in Section 61 providing for reference and revision, in a case under Section 33 of the Act.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - P S Bhati - Full Document

The Calcutta Gujarati Education ... vs Budge Budge Company Ltd on 19 March, 2024

The proviso, however, would show that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by the 1908 Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as an evidence to the contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. By virtue of the proviso, therefore, an unregistered sale deed of an immovable property of the value of Rs 100 and more could be admitted in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance of the contract. Such an unregistered sale deed can also be admitted in evidence as an evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document. When an unregistered sale deed is tendered in evidence, not as evidence of a completed sale, but as proof of an oral agreement of sale, the deed can be received in evidence making an endorsement that it is received only as evidence of an oral agreement of sale under the proviso to Section 49 of the 1908 Act." Observations made in Shyamal Kumar Roy's case (supra) was considered in this case.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S Majumdar - Full Document

Mr. Devupalli Anand Rao vs Mr.Sondi Martin 4 Others on 1 August, 2018

In the case of SHYAMAL KUMAR ROY Vs SUSHIL KUMAR AGARWAL {(2006) 11 SCC 331}, the Apex Court held that once a document has been marked as an exhibit in the case and the trial has proceeded all along on the footing that the document was an exhibit in the case and has been used by the parties in examination and cross examination of their witnesses, Section 36 of the Stamp Act comes into operation. Once a document has been admitted in evidence, as aforesaid, it is not open either to the trial Court itself or to a Court of appeal or revision to go behind that order. Such an order is not one of those judicial orders which are liable to be reviewed or revised by the same court or a Court of superior jurisdiction.
Telangana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

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

72. The learned counsel for the plaintiff rejoined that the objection taken by the learned counsel for the defendant to the agreement to sell in question for not being adequately stamped was never taken at the time of tendering of evidence and thus the same cannot be taken at this stage and seek that the document be impounded. To strengthen his submission, the learned counsel for the plaintiff placed reliance upon CS DJ ADJ No. 516710/2016 Page No. 34/79 the pronouncements - Suresh Kumar v. Satish Mehra and Anr., 20 Shyamal Kumar v. Sushil Kumar Agarwal. 21 The learned counsel stated that it is quite evident from the pleadings of the defendant that no such objection, defence was urged.
Delhi District Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mavuri Manikyam (Died) By Lrs. And Anr. vs G. Hanumanth Rao on 11 April, 2007

In Shyamal Kumar Roy v. Sushil Kumar Agarwal (supra), the Apex Court while considering the provisions of Stamp Act, as amended by the State of West Bengal Amendment Act, with reference to an agreement to develop the property. In a suit for specific performance of a Development Agreement, the agreement was filed and exhibited without any objection on the part of the appellant. Parties adduced their respective evidence. Subsequently, applications filed by appellant for recalling order admitting Development Agreement and for sending the same to Collector for impounding thereof, which was rejected and confirmed by the High Court in revision. On appeal, the Apex Court while confirming the order, held that the objection a regards admissibility of a document, specifically required to be taken that it was not duly stamped. On such objection only, the question is required to be determined judicially. If no objection had been made by the appellant in regard to the admissibility of the said document, he, at a later stage, cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that the said document is inadmissible in evidence. Appellant having consented to the document being marked as an exhibit has lost his right to reopen the question. What was necessary was that the document should be marked in the presence of the parties and they had an opportunity to object to the marking of the document. The question of judicial determination of the matter would arise, provided an objection is taken when document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case. After referring to Section 36 of the Stamp Act, it was observed that the same categorically prohibits a Court of law from reopening a matter in regard to the sufficiency or otherwise of the stamp duty paid on an instrument in the event the same has been admitted in evidence.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next