Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)Section 34 in Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Article 5 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Miss. Sandra Lesley Anna Bartels vs Miss. P Gunavathy on 29 November, 2012
16. It is further contended that looking into the
nature of the Act being one to penalize evasion of duty,
an interpretation favouring doing away with duty is not
permissible. Reliance has been placed by the
13
respondents to this Court's decision in the case of MISS.
SANDRA LESLEY ANNA BARTELS v. MISS.P.GUNAVATHY
reported in ILR 2013 KAR 368 wherein, in para 12 of
the decision it is held that under Section 33 of the Act,
once the document which is insufficiently stamped
comes to the notice of the Court, there has to be an
order impounding the said document though it is a
discretion of the Court to exercise its powers under
Sections 33 and 34 of the Act and that the Court ought
not to wait till the document is tendered in evidence.
Laiqram vs Agar Das on 25 June, 1966
13. The decision of Himachal Pradesh High
Court in the case of LAIQRAM v. AGAR DAS reported in
AIR 1967 HIMACHAL PRADESH 29 has been relied
upon (paras-6 to 9) to contend that a document to be
admitted in evidence, there had to be due application of
judicial mind and marking of the document without
adjudication or objection could not be held to constitute
admission in evidence.