Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.19 seconds)
Firm Poonam Nahta vs Amarchand And Ors. on 1 December, 1972 cites

Poonamchand vs Bastiram Deokishan And Anr. on 19 November, 1968

But it may be mentioned here that in Poonamchand's case 1969 RLW 248 the learned Single Judge was definitely of the view that the document if insufficiently stamped (which includes documents which require to be stamped but are unstamped) no revision would lie against an order offering to admit the document in evidence on payment of a certain amount of duty and penalty under the Stamp Act. In this view of the matter this argument of Mr. Gupta that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing the revision application against the impugned order of the trial court cannot be accepted.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Maula Bux And Ors. vs Munna Lal And Ors. on 19 October, 1938

The test that was laid down by their Lordships to judge a document which recites the obligation that had already been created against a promissory note is that the document would fall within the definition of a bond only when either the previous promissory notes have been annulled by executing subsequent document or there has been a novation of the contract on account of the document in question. In the opinion of their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court if a document makes a mention of an obligation which has already been created against promissory notes and the object of the document is only to lay down certain terms and conditions regarding the mode of payment etc. then such document cannot fall within the definition of bond. Applying this decision to the present case I find that all the advances were made by the petitioner firm to the executant of these documents against the promissory notes. These documents also speak that promissory notes were executed by the executant before advancement of loan to him. Simply because that liability which was taken by the respondent Vijai Krishan has once again recited in the present document, these documents cannot be brought within the definition of a bond as this liability has not been created under the document in question nor these documents wipe out the old liabilities that were created under the different promissory notes executed by Vijai Krishan in favour of the petitioner and create fresh liability and, therefore, it is difficult to say that Vijai Krishana obliged himself to pay the money to the petitioner firm under these documents. That obligation which has bean mentioned in these documents can be traced from the promissory notes executed by Vijai Krishan in favour of the petitioner firm which are still in vogue.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next