Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.61 seconds)Section 33 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Shyamal Kumar Roy vs Sushil Kumar Agarwal on 31 October, 2006
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"
Article 54 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 61 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Ahmmadsahab Abdul Mulla (D) By Prop. Lrs vs Bibijan & Ors on 1 April, 2009
The agreement was not
cancelled earlier, as admitted by the Respondent and manifest from
18
Ext. B. Material evidences produced very clearly establish that the
agreement was terminated and performance was refused on
27.03.2003 and not before hand. The agreement for sale itself
evinces that no date was fixed for performance of the contract.
Therefore, it is apt and just to conclude, following the ration of
Ahmadsahab's case and Madina Begum's case that limitation
started from the date on which refusal to perform was noticed and
limitation should run from 27.03.2003. The Trial Court, it
appears, attached unnecessary importance to the oral testimony of
the P.W. 1 being oblivious of the true purport of the basic principles
of primary and secondary evidences as well as the contents of Ext.
Monjur Alam Mallick vs Rajib Saha on 2 September, 2019
In Monjur Alam Mallick vs.
Rajib Saha [2019 (2) ICC 657 (Cal)], a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, referring to various authorities on the issue, held that if a
party fails to raise any objection with regard to admissibility of a
document on the ground of any defect like insufficiency of stamp,
13
the said party is clearly estopped from raising any objection at the
hearing of the suit regarding its admissibility. The objection, if
any, has to be raised at the time when the document is tendered in
evidence and not subsequently for the simple reason that if such
objection is considered to be valid then a party would have a
chance to remove the defects and/or deficiency in the document in
order to make it admissible.