Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.52 seconds)The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Ritesh Agarwal & Anr vs Securities & Exchange Board Of ... on 13 May, 2008
15. Sections 47A and 19B of the Act provide for penalty. A statute of limitation conferring jurisdiction upon the statutory authorities to impose penalty must, therefore, be construed strictly. A penal statute, as is well- known, unless expressly provided, cannot be given a retrospective effect. [See Ritesh Agarwal and Another v. Securities and Exchange Board of India (2008) 8 SCC 205]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 40 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
P. Ramiah vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 10 February, 2016
3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the matter in issue is squarely covered by the order dated 10.02.2016 made in W.P. Nos.38363 and 38887 of 2015 (P.Ramiah and others vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and others). Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 19-B(4) of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 and as per the said proviso, action is to be taken within a period of four years from the date of receipt of the copy of such instrument in the State of Tamil Nadu under the Registration Act, 1908 and admittedly even as per the letter of the Sub Registrar, Vadakkencherry, Palakkad District addressed to the District Registrar, Namakkal, the fact of the said registration, was brought to the knowledge of the said District Registrar, Namakkal as early as on 06.09.2006 and further that the very same property was also subjected to earlier mortgage in document No.2057/2014 dated 17.03.2014. He would further submit that in the light of the same, there cannot be any impediment or difficulty on the part of the respondent to register and return the document and prays for appropriate order to direct the respondent to register the mortgage deed.
J.V.D. Durai, Managing Director, ... vs The Presiding Officer, Second ... on 15 May, 2002
7.The said decision was also followed in subsequent orders dated 10.02.2016 in W.P. Nos.38363 and 38887 of 2015 cited supra and 06.01.2016 in W.P. No.15656 of 2002 (M.S.K.Constructions [Pvt.] Limited, rep. by its Managing Director vs. District Registrar (Administration), Chennai. The facts of this case would disclose that the Sub Registrar, Vadakkencherry, Palakkad District has informed the District Registrar, Namakkal about the registration of the said document vide Document No.742/1990 of Book I in respect of the very same property.
1