Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.39 seconds)Section 19 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 91 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Section 35 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Satyadhyan Ghosal And Others vs Sm. Deorajin Debi And Another on 20 April, 1960
In this connection, it is necessary to refer to the rulings reported in Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Smt.Deorain Debi, AIR 1960 SC 941, and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Another Vs. K.M.Yakub (Died) and others, 1996(2) L.W. 817, The Apex Court has held as follows:
Rajah Of Vizianagaram vs The Official Liquidator, Vizianagaram ... on 9 February, 1951
In Raja of Vizianagaram Vs. Official Liquidator, AIR 1952 Madras 136it had been held that an acknowledgment of the liability made after the expiration of the period of limitation cannot give a cause of action for making a claim of a time barred debt. Acknowledgment can be only of a subsisting liability.
Jupudi Kesava Rao vs Pulavarthi Venkata Subbarao And Others on 29 January, 1971
In Jupudi Kesava Rao Vs. Pulavarthi Venkata Subbarao, AIR 1971 SC 1070 it had been held that secondary evidence, by way of oral evidence, evidence or a copy of the document, insufficiently stamped, is not admissible in a suit, even though an objection to its admissibility had not been taken when the document was marked.
Lothamasu Sambasiva Rao vs Thadwarthi Balakotiah on 14 November, 1972
32. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had relied on the decision, in Lothamasu Sambasiva Rao Vs. Thadwarthi Balakotiah, wherein it had been held that if the promissory note embodies all the terms of the contract and the instrument is improperly stamped, no suit on the debt will lie, as it would be barred by Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
Perumal Chettiar vs Kamakshi Ammal on 10 February, 1938
33. The learned counsel had also relied on the decision of the Full Bench of this court, in Perumal Chettiar Vs. Kamakshi Ammal, AIR 1938 Madras 785, wherein it had been held that no liability would arise based on an instrument, which was improperly stamped.