Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.35 seconds)
Peacebird Premises Co-Op. Society Ltd. vs Collector Of Stamps Of Mumbai And Ors. on 22 August, 2007
cites
The Maharashtra Prohibition Act
The Registration Act, 1908
State Of Maharashtra And Ors. vs M.S. Builders (Private) Limited And ... on 13 February, 1992
9. Those authorities are of no assistance insofar as petitioner is concerned as admittedly there is no dispute that the consent decree conveyed the property. On the facts of this case, the issue would squarely be covered by the judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court in M.S. Builders (supra).
Section 32 in The Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960
Section 31 in The Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Padma Nair vs The Deputy Collector, Valuation And ... on 28 July, 1993
Insofar as second issue is concerned, the learned Division Bench relied on the judgment in Padma Nair (supra) as also ITC Ltd. and Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. , held that Item 25 as amended would be applicable only to those agreements which were entered into before 9-1-1985.
Nirmala Manherlal Shah vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 3 May, 2005
Next reliance was placed on the judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court in Nirmala Manherlal Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. to which one of us (Rebello, J.) was party. In that case, the agreement was entered into on 19-7-1980. The agreement was lodged with the Collector for an endorsement whether the document was properly stamped by paying the fees. The petitioner received the demand notice by hand delivery informing that the agreement submitted was impounded under Section 32 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 and was called upon to pay the amount as demanded. The case of the petitioner was that the demand was illegal as the amendment by way of explanation to the Bombay Stamp Act came into force on 9-12-1985 and the agreement was entered into on 19-7-1980. The amount was however, paid under protest. Thereafter the petitioner prays for the refund of the amount with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. The questions formulated by this Court were as under:
Itc Limited And Anr. vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 10 June, 1997
Insofar as second issue is concerned, the learned Division Bench relied on the judgment in Padma Nair (supra) as also ITC Ltd. and Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. , held that Item 25 as amended would be applicable only to those agreements which were entered into before 9-1-1985.