Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)Section 11 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Sivasubramania Thevan vs Kalankarayan Konar on 24 January, 1941
The decision in Sivasubramania Thavan v. Kolankaraya Konar (1941) 2 M.L.J. 301, merely held that in a case of assignment or transfer of a promissory note drawn or made outside British India, the first holder in British India must affix a proper stamp and cancel the same and the affixing of the stamp and its cancellation must be done before the process of transfer began in British India. In this case, we arc not concerned with a case of transfer in India. The further point whether,, where a promissory note has been executed abroad but has been stamped there according to the law in India, it should or should not be stamped again when it is brought into India and submitted to any of the processes referred to under Section 19 of the Stamp Act does not really arise in this case.
Simulu Ebrahim Rowthan vs Abdul Rahiman Mahomed And Ors. on 12 August, 1898
3. In this case, the suits were filed on the basis of the promissory notes. They have not been presented for acceptance or payment. Nor have they been endorsed or transferred or otherwise negotiated in India. There is, therefore, no need for affixing proper stamp and cancelling the same. That, when a suit is filed on a promissory note executed as well as endorsed outside India, it need not be stamped as required under Section 19 has been held as early as 1898 in Simulu Ebrahim Rowthen v. Abdul Rahiman Mohamad (1898) 8 M.L.J. 182.
1