Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: the Kondoli Tea Co. Ld.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Apr 03, 1886
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/864532

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Company

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Stamp Act (I of 1879), Article 21, Schedule I--Conveyance by vendors under one denomination to the same persons, purchasers under another denomination. -

Key legal issue
Company

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: the Kondoli Tea Co. Ld.

Legal References

Reported In
(1886)ILR13Cal43

Excerpt

stamp act (i of 1879), article 21, schedule i--conveyance by vendors under one denomination to the same persons, purchasers under another denomination. - w. comer petheram, c.j.1. the question in this case is, whether a document carrying out a particular transaction is a conveyance within the meaning of the definition contained in clause 9 of section 3 of the stamp act, and within the meaning of article 21 of schedule i of that act.2. the document, upon the face of it, professes to be a conveyance of a tea garden from eight gentlemen to the kondoli tea company, limited, in consideration of 43,320, the said consideration being payable in shares and debentures of the company taken at par.3. it is said that that is not what the real transaction is; because the only shareholders in the kondoli tea company are the eight gentlemen who conveyed the estate, and that therefore it was not really a conveyance or transfer by way of sale, but a mere handing over of the property from them in one name to themselves under another name.4. i think that is a fallacy. whoever the shareholders in the kondoli tea company, limited, were, i think the kondoli tea company, limited, was a, separate person, a separate body, and a conveyance to the kondoli tea company, limited, of property which was the property of the sharers in their individual capacity, was just as much a conveyance, a transfer of the property as if the shareholders in the company had been totally different persons.5. this is the only thing that i think it necessary for us to say in giving judgment, namely, that, in my opinion, the kondoli tea company, limited, is a separate body; and for the purpose of seeing what their transactions are, i do not think it is possible to look at the register of shareholders to ascertain who the shareholders were; and, consequently, although the conveying parties here were the shareholders of the company, there was just as much a sale and transfer of the property and a change of ownership as there would have been if the shareholders had been different persons.6. i therefore, think that the proper stamp to be put upon this document is the ad.....

Full Judgment

W. Comer Petheram, C.J.

1. The question in this case is, whether a document carrying out a particular transaction is a conveyance within the meaning of the definition contained in Clause 9 of Section 3 of the Stamp Act, and within the meaning of Article 21 of Schedule I of that Act.

2. The document, upon the face of it, professes to be a conveyance of a tea garden from eight gentlemen to the Kondoli Tea Company, Limited, in consideration of 43,320, the said consideration being payable in shares and debentures of the company taken at par.

3. It is said that that is not what the real transaction is; because the only shareholders in the Kondoli Tea Company are the eight gentlemen who conveyed the estate, and that therefore it was not really a conveyance or transfer by way of sale, but a mere handing over of the property from them in one name to themselves under another name.

4. I think that is a fallacy. Whoever the shareholders in the Kondoli Tea company, Limited, were, I think the Kondoli Tea Company, Limited, was a, separate person, a separate body, and a conveyance to the Kondoli Tea Company, Limited, of property which was the property of the sharers in their individual capacity, was just as much a conveyance, a transfer of the property as if the shareholders in the Company had been totally different persons.

5. This is the only thing that I think it necessary for us to say in giving judgment, namely, that, in my opinion, the Kondoli Tea Company, Limited, is a separate body; and for the purpose of seeing what their transactions are, I do not think it is possible to look at the Register of Shareholders to ascertain who the shareholders were; and, consequently, although the conveying parties here were the shareholders of the Company, there was just as much a sale and transfer of the property and a change of ownership as there would have been if the shareholders had been different persons.

6. I therefore, think that the proper stamp to be put upon this document is the ad valorem stamp mentioned in Article 21 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act, and that it must be calculated1 on the amount of the consideration mentioned in the instrument.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial