Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.39 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S Gtz (India Private Limited) vs Power Electronic Engineers & Ors on 23 September, 2009
In support of such proposition, learned counsel cites a division bench judgment reported
at (2009) 4 CHN 415 [GTZ (India Private Limited) vs. Power Electronic Engineers & Ors.] as
well as another division bench judgment reported at (2010) 4 CHN (Cal) 18 [Gopal Kumar
Bhalotia & Anr. vs. Anirudh Trade and Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.]. In both the said
judgments, it was held that failure to stamp a document properly does not affect the
validity of the transaction embodied in the document. It was further held that injunction
cannot be refused simply because the agreement was executed on insufficiently stamped
paper. The trial Judge, at the injunction stage, could demand sufficient amount of
security to safeguard the interest of the State revenue.
M/S Sms Tea Estates P.Ltd vs M/S Chandmari Tea Co.P.Ltd on 20 July, 2011
17. Learned counsel cites the judgment reported at (2011) 14 SCC 66 [SMS Tea Estates Private
Limited vs. Chandmari Tea Company Private Limited], for the proposition that if a document
is not duly stamped, Section 35 of the Stamp Act debars it from being acted upon, unless
the same is first impounded. Such principle was applicable even if the arbitration clause
was incorporated in an agreement which itself was insufficiently stamped.
Sanjeeva Reddi vs Johanputra Reddi on 30 August, 1971
28. Learned counsel relies on a judgment reported at AIR 1972 AP 373 [Sanjeeva Reddy vs.
Johanputra Reddy], for the proposition that no part of an unstamped/insufficiently
stamped document can be admitted in evidence without the same being impounded, as
per Section 35 of the Stamp Act.
S.Kaladevi vs V.R.Somasundaram & Ors on 12 April, 2010
In
4
this context, learned counsel cites two decisions, reported respectively at (2010) 5 SCC
401 [S. Kaladevi vs. V.R. Somasundaram and others] and at (2018) 7 SCC 639 [Ameer Minhaj
vs. Dierdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar and others].
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 49 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Avinash Kumar Chauhan vs Vijay Krishna Mishra on 17 December, 2008
29. By placing reliance on (2009) 2 SCC 532 [Avinash Kumar Chauhan vs. Vijay Krishna
Mishra], it is argued that there has to be impoundment under Section 35 of the Stamp
Act even if the document sought to be admitted in evidence was for collateral purposes.
Ameer Minhaj vs Dierdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar on 4 July, 2018
In
4
this context, learned counsel cites two decisions, reported respectively at (2010) 5 SCC
401 [S. Kaladevi vs. V.R. Somasundaram and others] and at (2018) 7 SCC 639 [Ameer Minhaj
vs. Dierdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar and others].