Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (1.37 seconds)

Avinash Kumar Chauhan vs Vijay Krishna Mishra on 17 December, 2008

(a) to Section 35 of the Stamp Act is only applicable when the original instrument is actually before the court of law and the deficiency in stamp with a penalty is paid by the party seeking to rely upon the document. A party can only be allowed to rely on a document which is an instrument for the purpose of Section 35. Instrument is defined in Section 2 (14 ) as including every document by which any right or liability is, or purports to be created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded. In the present case, the agreement to sell in question is on stamp paper of `300/-, the stamp duty on agreement to sell immovable property as per PARVEEN KUMAR 2016.03.02 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document -10- CR-5269-2015 clause (c) of Article 5 as applicable to Punjab is `2000/- so there is deficiency of `1700/-only and as per Section 35 proviso (a), the same would become admissible in evidence on payment of penalty equivalent to 10 times of the deficient portion of the stamp duty. The deficiency being of `1700/-, the penalty payable comes to `17,000/- and thus, this penalty and the deficiency of `1,700/- i.e. `18,700/- would be payable by the plaintiff for seeking admissibility of this agreement. The authority of Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay krishna Mishra 2009(2) SCC 532 is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 297 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next