Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (4.14 seconds)Jupudi Kesava Rao vs Pulavarthi Venkata Subbarao And Others on 29 January, 1971
11. As far as this case is concerned, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in In Jupudi v. Pulavarthi deals with Section 35 and 36 of the Stamp Act in detail whereas the decision reported in 2004 (I) LW. 706 Bondar Singh v. Nihal Singh as well as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in 2004 (3) MLJ 362 Venugopal @ Alagarsamy and Ors. v. Bajanai Alagarsamy and Anr. Sections 35 and 36 of the Stamp Act has not been discussed at all. Therefore, when there is a conflicting judgments by the two co-equal Benches, the judgment of that bench which directly deals with in detail about the controversy regarding the stamp Act has to be preferred than the other judgments which do not discuss about such controversy.
Section 38 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs State Of Gujarat And Anr on 22 February, 2001
15. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part and the order of the trial court is modified. The trial court is directed to ascertain the stamp duty and penalty payable upon the disputed document, then call upon the party who wants to rely on those documents, to pay the stamp duty and penalty, and then on payment of stamp duty and penalty, admit the document in evidence, whether it is for collateral purpose or otherwise, which could be decided at the later stage while hearing the case as guided by the Apex Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and Anr. (2001) 3 SCC 1. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed. No costs.
Section 36 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Amar Singh Yadav And Anr. vs Shanti Devi And Ors. on 22 September, 1986
In Amar Singh Yadav v. Shanthi Devi a Full Bench of the Patna High Court held that where there is a direct conflict between two decisions of the Supreme Court by co-equal Benches, the High Court must follow the judgment which states the law more elaborately and accurately and the question whether the decision is earlier or later, is not the criteria.
Pentapati Nageswara Rao vs Moka Naraynamurthi And Anr. on 30 August, 1937
In 1937 II MLJ 805 Penatapati Nageswara Rao v. Moka Narayanamurthi and Anr. a Division Bench of this Court held that the improperly stamped document could not be used to prove a collateral purpose, namely the acknowledgment of liability on previous notes.