Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (1.39 seconds)

Sudarshan Talkies (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. vs The Chief Controlling Revenue ... on 16 November, 1977

14. In the case before us the evidence in this respect was the particulars furnished in Form 3 giving the prescribed particulars of the contract between the parties. It cannot be denied that the title of the allottees to the allotment of shares could be constituted by a contract, and in no other way. Since the contract between the parties was not reduced to writing, the information that was required to be filed with the Registrar in terms of S. 75(2) was in respect of the oral contract constituting the title of the allottees to the allotment of the shares, It is, therefore, evident that the form furnishing the particulars of the oral agreement, in law has to be determined for the purposes of the stamp duty 'to be the contract in writing' by which the title to the allotment was constituted. Stamp duty accordingly on the form furnishing the requisite particulars has to be determined as if it was a contract made in writing. it is beyond the pale of controversy that the particulars which are required to be furnished are in respect of the particulars of the contract constituting the, title of the allotment of the shares and of the consideration of the contract. No title to allotment would accrue in the absence of a contract. In the instant case the particulars that were furnished in Form 3 had to be and in fact were in respect of the oral contract between the parties in respect of the title of the allottees to the allotment of shares; in the absence of such a contract they would not derive any title to the allotment of shares. We are fortified in our view from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Sri Rai Sachdeva v. Board of Revenue, .
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - Y Dayal - Full Document

Canbank Financial Services Ltd vs The Custodian & Others on 3 September, 2004

The allotment of CANCIGOS is not a transfer as thereby Canbank Mutual Fund had allowed the shares not as owner thereof. The Benami Transactions Act applies when there is a transaction in which the property is transferred. If allotment of CANCIGOS is not a transfer of property, the Act would not apply. [See Sri Raj Sachdeva Vs. Board of Revenue [AIR 1959 All 595] and The Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Co., Ltd. , In re. [1932 Comp. Cas 411].
Supreme Court of India Cites 62 - Cited by 104 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad & Ors vs Shantadevi P. Gaekwad (Dead)Thr.Lrs. & ... on 20 January, 2005

"The allotment of CANCIGOS is not a transfer as thereby Canbank Mutual Fund had allowed the shares not as owner thereof. The Benami Transactions Act applies when there is a transaction in which the property is transferred. If allotment of CANCIGOS is not a transfer of property, the Act would not apply. [See Sri Raj Sachdeva Vs. Board of Revenue [AIR 1959 All 595] and The Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Co., Ltd. , In re. [1932 Comp. Cas 411].
Supreme Court of India Cites 71 - Cited by 238 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1