Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.16 seconds)Sukhdev Singh vs Baxis Singh And Anr. on 24 January, 2006
5. However, the learned counsel Mr. S. Gaharana for the respondents relying upon the judgments of this court in case of Smt. Keshar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 1997(1) WLC (Raj.), 514 and in the case of Sukhdev Singh Vs. Baxis Singh & Anr. 2006(2) RLW, 1036 and on th judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of John Mithalal Desai Vs. Dineshbhai Vora 1998(2) Civil Court Cases, 339 (Gujarat) submitted that an unregistered agreement for sell would not be admissible in evidence, and that insufficiently stamped document could be impounded by the court and the party could be directed to pay the stamp duty and the penalty amount under the said Act.
John Mithalal Desai vs Dineshbhai K. Vora on 29 August, 1997
5. However, the learned counsel Mr. S. Gaharana for the respondents relying upon the judgments of this court in case of Smt. Keshar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 1997(1) WLC (Raj.), 514 and in the case of Sukhdev Singh Vs. Baxis Singh & Anr. 2006(2) RLW, 1036 and on th judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of John Mithalal Desai Vs. Dineshbhai Vora 1998(2) Civil Court Cases, 339 (Gujarat) submitted that an unregistered agreement for sell would not be admissible in evidence, and that insufficiently stamped document could be impounded by the court and the party could be directed to pay the stamp duty and the penalty amount under the said Act.
Chilakuri Gangulappa vs Revenue Divisional Officer, ... on 14 March, 2001
4. The learned counsel Mr. Prahlad Sharma for the petitioner submitted that the High Court had partly allowed the Revision Petition without issuing notice to the petitioner and without giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. According to him, the trial court, therefore, passed the impugned order pursuant to the said order passed by the High Court, which was illegal and improper. Mr. Sharma further placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Chilakuri Gangulappa Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanpalle & Anr. (2001) 4 SCC, 197 submitted that the trial court could not have calculated and directed the petitioner to pay the amount of the stamp duty and the penalty and that the impugned order passed by the trial court was in violation of the provisions contained in the said Act.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 39 in Rajasthan Stamp Act 1998 [Entire Act]
Rajasthan Stamp Act 1998
Smt. Keshar vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 4 November, 1996
5. However, the learned counsel Mr. S. Gaharana for the respondents relying upon the judgments of this court in case of Smt. Keshar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 1997(1) WLC (Raj.), 514 and in the case of Sukhdev Singh Vs. Baxis Singh & Anr. 2006(2) RLW, 1036 and on th judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of John Mithalal Desai Vs. Dineshbhai Vora 1998(2) Civil Court Cases, 339 (Gujarat) submitted that an unregistered agreement for sell would not be admissible in evidence, and that insufficiently stamped document could be impounded by the court and the party could be directed to pay the stamp duty and the penalty amount under the said Act.
1