Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.29 seconds)

Sukhdev Singh vs Baxis Singh And Anr. on 24 January, 2006

Mr. Suresh Shrimali, learned counsel for the respondent, in support of his contentions has also placed reliance on a coordinate Bench decision of this Court in case of Sukhdev Singh Vs. Baxis Singh & Anr. [2006 (2) RDD 732 (Raj.)] wherein while considering the import of Sections 17 & 49 of the Registration Act and Section 35 of the of the Stamp Law (Adoption) Act 1952, the Court has held that a document which is insufficiently stamped and not registered is inadmissible in evidence even for collateral purposes. The Court made following observations in Para 29 & 30 of the verdict:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 45 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

United Bank Of India Ltd. vs Lekharam Sonaram And Co. And Ors. on 1 February, 1965

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that we should read the words "delivered to and deposited" occurring in the first line of the letter as "I hereby deliver and deposit with you". But we are unable to see how we can change the wording of the document. He says that this letter reduces all the terms of the bargain to writing and, therefore, the letter itself constitutes the bargain and is registrable. He says it mentions the amount secured and the three Hundis executed and thus inferentially the interest on the Hundis under Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The law on the point is quite clear and has been considered by this Court on at least three occasions. It is only necessary to mention the latest decision in United Bank of India Vs. Lakharam Sonaram & Co., AIR 1965 SC 1591 where Ramaswami, J., reviewed the earlier decisions bearing on the point.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 62 - Full Document
1   2 Next