Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Prasad Technology Park Pvt. Ltd vs Sub Registrar & Ors on 8 December, 2005

Tata Communications Data Centres ... vs District Registrar (Administration) on 9 October, 2025

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prasad Technology Park Pvt., Ltd., vs. Sub-Registrar and others reported in 2006 1 SCC 473 dealt with similar issue in respect of supplementary Page 9 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 01:29:56 pm ) W.P.Nos.6892 & 7235 of 2018 agreement entered into by parties, whether it attracts stamp duty, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that by reason of mere change of user from carrying on one business to another, it is trite, a fresh transaction does not take place. The terms and conditions of the lease can be changed by mutual consent. Unless the essential ingredients thereof as contained in Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act are not altered, it cannot be said that the parties to the contract entered into a fresh transaction. Therefore, the supplementary lease agreement cannot be said to be an instrument.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - G K Ilanthiraiyan - Full Document

Vijaybhai Zinabhai Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat on 10 August, 2018

19. He would further submit that new rights have been created in favour of the present petitioners without paying any stamp by executing a document by giving nomenclature of 'Rectification Deed'. By taking me through the Sale Deed, he would submit that wherever there is a reference of purchaser, the name has been shown as Shivshakti Developers. The petitioners have purchased the property in the capacity of the partners in the said Sale Deed. Therefore, the Rectification Deed cannot be treated as if some minor mistakes are to be corrected. He would submit that the decision relied upon by Mr. Buch in the case of Prasad Technology Park (P) Limited (Supra) is not applicable in the facts of the present case. He would submit that in the said case, only the name of the Company was changed whereas in the present case, the entire entity is changed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - A J Desai - Full Document

Indian Oil Corporation & Ors vs Soma Saha & Anr on 28 September, 2022

39. Coming to the next question of currency of lease as on the last date of submission of application, it is submitted by Mr. Mitra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants that the lease deed though executed on 16.10.2017, it was to commence from 01.11.2017, a date posterior to the last date of submission of application i.e. 18.10.2017. Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 relying on the case of Prasad Technology Park (P) Ltd. supra submits that unless the essential ingredients as contained in Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act are altered, it cannot be said that the parties to the contract entered into a fresh transaction. Admittedly, the lease deed was rectified 35 between the lessee (present Respondent No.1) and the lessor on 20.08.2018 making the lease effective from the date of registration i.e. 16.10.2017. By the last date of submission of application, the currency of lease with effect from 16.10.2017 was not there on record. We are, therefore, posed with the question whether such rectification of lease deed between the lessor and the lessee on a posterior date to the last date of submission of application bears any meaning so far as the Appellant Corporation is concerned.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

D.Arunachalam vs The Sub Registrar on 23 September, 2022

“6. It is relevant to refer to the unreported judgment of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.(MD) No.2635 of 2012, dated 13.03.2013, in the case of M/s.K.D.P.Properties Private Limited vs. The Sub-Registrar and other, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein, in paragraph No.18, a reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1985) 2 SCC 167, Balkrishan Gupta and others vs. Swadeshi Polytex Limited and another, and it was held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M Dhandapani - Full Document

D.Balasubramnian vs The Sub Registrar on 1 August, 2022

“6. It is relevant to refer to the unreported judgment of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.(MD) No.2635 of 2012, dated 13.03.2013, in the case of M/s.K.D.P.Properties Private Limited vs. The Sub-Registrar and other, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein, in paragraph No.18, a reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1985) 2 SCC 167, Balkrishan Gupta and others vs. Swadeshi Polytex Limited and another, and it was held as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/11 W.P. No.19443 of 2022 follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M Dhandapani - Full Document

The State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. & Anr on 21 August, 2023

In the case of Prasad Technology Park (P) Ltd. Vs. Sub-Registrar & Ors. [2006 (1) SCC 473] the question before Hon'ble Supreme Court was as to whether stamp duty is payable on lease to registered company changing its own name so as to be indicative of its new business. After thorough discussion in paragraph 11 of the said Judgement, Hon'ble The Supreme Court came to hold that "change of name" of company does not involve any transfer and accordingly the claim of the State was negatived.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ms S K Industries vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Others on 11 June, 2012

(16) In the light of foregoing discussion and keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforequoted decision, we cannot uphold the view taken by the Learned Single Judge when he allowed the writ petition filed by the State and set aside the order of the Board of Revenue. Indeed, the writ Court did not examine the issue in light of the well settled principle which governed the issue nor appreciated the factual undisputed controversy involved in the case and thereby committed error of law requiring this Court to interfere.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A M Sapre - Full Document

S.Praveen Bohra vs Joint-I Sub-Registrar on 4 March, 2016

6. It is relevant to refer to the unreported judgment of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.(MD) No.2635 of 2012, dated 13.03.2013, in the case of M/s.K.D.P.Properties Private Limited vs. The Sub-Registrar and other, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein, in paragraph No.18, a reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1985) 2 SCC 167, Balkrishan Gupta and others vs. Swadeshi Polytex Limited and another, and it was held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - R Subbiah - Full Document

S.Praveen Bohra vs Joint-I Sub-Registrar on 4 March, 2016

6. It is relevant to refer to the unreported judgment of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.(MD) No.2635 of 2012, dated 13.03.2013, in the case of M/s.K.D.P.Properties Private Limited vs. The Sub-Registrar and other, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein, in paragraph No.18, a reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1985) 2 SCC 167, Balkrishan Gupta and others vs. Swadeshi Polytex Limited and another, and it was held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 39 - R Subbiah - Full Document

S.Praveen Bohra vs Joint-I Sub-Registrar on 4 March, 2016

6. It is relevant to refer to the unreported judgment of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.(MD) No.2635 of 2012, dated 13.03.2013, in the case of M/s.K.D.P.Properties Private Limited vs. The Sub-Registrar and other, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein, in paragraph No.18, a reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1985) 2 SCC 167, Balkrishan Gupta and others vs. Swadeshi Polytex Limited and another, and it was held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - R Subbiah - Full Document
1   2 3 Next