Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)
Subramaniam vs Gunasundari, Baby @ Vijayalakshmi And ... on 29 November, 2006 cites

Jupudi Kesava Rao vs Pulavarthi Venkata Subbarao And Others on 29 January, 1971

11. As far as this case is concerned, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in In Jupudi v. Pulavarthi deals with Section 35 and 36 of the Stamp Act in detail whereas the decision reported in 2004 (I) LW. 706 Bondar Singh v. Nihal Singh as well as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in 2004 (3) MLJ 362 Venugopal @ Alagarsamy and Ors. v. Bajanai Alagarsamy and Anr. Sections 35 and 36 of the Stamp Act has not been discussed at all. Therefore, when there is a conflicting judgments by the two co-equal Benches, the judgment of that bench which directly deals with in detail about the controversy regarding the stamp Act has to be preferred than the other judgments which do not discuss about such controversy.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 100 - G K Mitter - Full Document

Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs State Of Gujarat And Anr on 22 February, 2001

15. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part and the order of the trial court is modified. The trial court is directed to ascertain the stamp duty and penalty payable upon the disputed document, then call upon the party who wants to rely on those documents, to pay the stamp duty and penalty, and then on payment of stamp duty and penalty, admit the document in evidence, whether it is for collateral purpose or otherwise, which could be decided at the later stage while hearing the case as guided by the Apex Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and Anr. (2001) 3 SCC 1. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed. No costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 535 - Full Document

Bondar Singh & Ors vs Nihal Singh & Ors on 4 March, 2003

In the case involved in the above decision also, the documents ought to be relied on was an unregistered and unstamped sale deed. But, the same was admitted, in evidence, for collateral purposes. Though such an observation has been made, the Hon'ble Apex Court has not considered the effect of Section 35 of the Stamp Act. If Section 35 of the Stamp Act was considered and the wording stated therein, vi., 'for any purpose', is ignored, then, if it is said, it can be taken as the law declared by the Apex Court, which is binding upon the Courts below throughout the breadth and length of this country. As seen from the above decision, nowhere it is discussed about the effect of Section 35 of the Stamp Act, though in the head note, the publishers have stated, Stamp Act Sections 35, 32, 36 Registration Act, 49, etc., In the absence of any discussion about the payment of stamp duty and penalty, mere observation that the document could be looked into, for collateral purposes, alone, is not sufficient to allow all the documents un stamped, which required stamp duty, should be admitted in evidence, thereby offending the statute viz., in this case Section 35 of the Stamp Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 320 - A Kumar - Full Document

Chilakuri Gangulappa vs Revenue Divisional Officer, ... on 14 March, 2001

In the second case viz., Chilakuri Gangulappa v Revenue Divisional officer, Madanpalle and Anr. 2000 2 MLJ 33, the Apex Court considering Section 38 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the fact under what circumstances, as insufficiently stamped document could be admitted in evidence, has observed that it is the duty of the Court, at the first instance, that if the Court finds that the instrument is insufficiently stamped, it should call upon the party, as to whether he would remit the deficient portion of the stamp duty together with a penalty, amounting to ten times the deficiency, and in the case if the party agrees to remit the said amount, the Court has to proceed with trial, after admitting the document in evidence. The, it contemplates what are the further proceedings to be initiated under Section 38 of the Stamp Act etc. In the case involved in the above decision also, an insufficiently stamped document came to the consideration of the Apex Court. If the Apex Court was of the view that un-stamped or unregistered documents are, automatically, to be admitted in evidence, without reference to Section 35 of the Indian Stamp At, then the Apex Court would not have observed that the Court should call upon the party to remit the deficient portion of the stamp duty together with a penalty, amounting to ten times the deficient or even the lesser penalty. Since the Apex Court was conscious about Section 35 of the Stamp Act, while considering Section 38, it is observed on the basis of Section 38(1) of the Stamp Act:
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 57 - Full Document
1