Court : Gujarat
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed assailing the method and manner in which powers are exercised by the authority under various provisions of Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (for short Act of 1958) and Bombay Stamp (Determination of Market Value of Property) Rules, 1984 (for short Rules of 1984) and challenges preparation and usage of the Final Annual Statement of Rates 2008 (ASR) (popularly known as Jantri) published and made effective from 1.4.2008 in the State of Gujarat. 2. In para 24 of this petition, the petitioners have prayed to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the Final Annual Statement of Rates, 2008 published and made effective from 1.4.2008 by respondents for the area comprising of Bhuj Taluka, District: Kutch. The petitioners have further prayed that authorities under the provisions of the Act be directed to follow and adhere the statutory provisions under Bombay Stamp Act, 1958...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1981Bom164
1. This second appeal had been preferred by the heirs of the original defendant against the decree arid judgment dated 31st March, 1971, passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, whereunder the defendant was directed to pay to the plaintiff, the State of Maharashtra, an amount of Rs. 1,397.50 P. and costs of the suit.2. This decree was confirmed and the defendant's appeal was dismissed by Extra Assistant Judge, Pune.3. The original defendant Shri Ramchandra Vishwanath Ghaisas, against whom the suit was originally filed and who died during the pendency of the said suit was serving as Sub-Registrar at Baramati. On 14th June, 1952, one Govindram Ganeshram Marwadi, executed a gift deed of his properties situated in Baramati bearing City S. Nos. 23, 122, 756, 757 and 758 in favour of his wife. In the gift deed the market value of the above properties was shown at Rs. 5,000/- and on that basis the stamp duty and registration fee were assessed and recovered by Shri Ghaisas. Govindram's so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2007AP177; 2007(3)ALD199; 2007(5)ALT59
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 14-3-2006 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar in O.S. No. 557 of 2004 upholding the objection raised by the defendant as to stamp duty payable on the suit document dated 19-5-2003.2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff who filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 70,000/- allegedly due from the defendants/respondents herein. The plaintiff pleaded in the plaint that the husband of the 1st defendant by name Kamalakar Rao borrowed a sum of Rs. 70,000/- from the plaintiff on 19-5-2003 and executed a document on the same day agreeing to pay the said amount on demand. It is also pleaded that the said Kamalakar Rao issued a cheque bearing No. 675910 dated 19-5-2003 for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- towards collateral security. However, he evaded payment of the said amount in spite of several demands made by the plaintiff and recently he died intestate leaving behind the defendants, being his wife a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC4094(SC); (SCSuppl)2008(4)CHN190; (2009)1GLR575; (2008)8MLJ507; 2008(12)SCALE418; (2008)9SCC401; 2008(5)LH(SC)3569
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Leave granted.3. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court allowing the revision petition filed by the respondent. In a Suit for specific performance of the contract for sale of immovable property, the present respondent took the stand that he had entered into an oral agreement with the defendant, i.e. the present appellant for purchase of the Suit property for a consideration of Rs. 6,01,000/-. Following the execution of the contract, an amount of Rs. 3,51,000/- was stated to havebeen paid. It was followed by another payment of Rs. 1,11,618/-. The defendant acknowledged the factum of acceptance of part payment of the consideration amount. When the Suit came up for hearing, the respondent came up with the application for accepting certain documents, i.e. the documents containing the terms and conditions of agreement and certain rent receipts. The appellant took the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in No.3431/N3/2012 dated 30.1.2012 and quash the same and thereby direct the respondents to consider and levy the stamp duty in respect of the sale deed of the petitioner registered in Document No.625/2003 dated 7.4.2003 on the file of the 3rd respondent herein under the Samadhan Scheme introduced by Government of Tamilnadu in G.O.Ms.132 Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 31.10.2011.O R D E R1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order No.3431/N3/2012 dated 30.01.2012 with the consequential relief in the nature of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to accept the offer of petitioner to remit two third of the difference of stamp duty chargeable on the value of the property as proposed by the Registering Officer and the stamp duty already paid. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Both petitions impugn the order dated 1st July, 2009 of the Additional District Judge allowing the appeal preferred by Sh. Sanjay Grover under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as applicable to Delhi and setting aside the order dated 19th August, 2008 of the Collector of Stamps, Delhi. Notices of the petitions were issued. Pleadings have been completed and the counsels have been heard.2. The controversy concerns a Gift Deed registered on 1 st May, 2006. Vide the said Gift Deed Sh. Chander Bhan Grover who was the father of the Ms. Seema Grover Seth and Sh. Sanjay Grover gifted industrial plot admeasuring 383.4 sq. yards of freehold land in the industrial area of Village Naraina, Delhi together with two and half storeyed construction thereon to Sh. Sanjay Grover. The property subject matter of gift was valued in the said deed at `19 lacs and the Gift Deed was executed on Non-Judicial Stamp Paper of `1,52,000/-. Sh. Chander Bhan Grover died shortly thereafter on 6th September,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC110; 1962(0)BLJR64; [1962]1SCR827
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. This is an appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Patna in an appeal under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The appellant is the State of Bihar, and the respondents are a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, doing business as building contractors. They entered into three contracts for the construction of aerodrome, hangarettes, buildings, stores and other works at Ranchi, the first of them being contract No. 21 of 1942 dated November 5, 1942, and the other two being contracts Nos. 6 and 8 dated April 5, 1943. After the above works were completed, disputes arose between the parties over the bills and eventually by an agreement dated February 6, 1948, they were referred to the arbitration of one Col. A.W.S. Smith. The arbitrator made his award on June 4, 1948, and sent a copy thereof to the parties. The respondents thereupon filed a petition under Sections 17 and 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, for a decree in terms of the award. The appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1999(5)ALD26; 1999(4)ALT706
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet dated 3-2-1999 with regard to the admissibility of the suit document dated 10-3-1984 in OS No.135/96, the petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit filed this revision petition before this Court.2. Heard both the Counsel.3. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the suit schedule property under the document in question dated 10-3-1984 from the husband of the first respondent and obtained an un-registered document whereunder he was put in possession of the property. Subsequently, after the death of the executants, the petitioner approached the Court by way of filing the suit - OS No.135/96 to direct the respondents to execute a regular sale-deed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The document being an un-registered document, the respondents raised an objection that it is not admissible in evidence as the same is required to be registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1973Bom27; (1972)74BOMLR174; ILR1972Bom816; 1972MhLJ405
1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Osmanabad, in Civil Appeal No.34 of 1968 arising out of the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge Osmanabad, in Civil Suit No. 52/1 of 1955.2. The predecessor of the respondents one Hirachand Amichand filed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 5250/- O.S. on the basis of a pro-note dated 6th December 1952 alleged to have been executed by one Shivial Raoji, the predecessor of the present appellants. The original defendant contested the claim denying both the execution and consideration of the pro-note. He also contended that the so-called pro-note was a money bend and the same being not duly stamped, it was inadmissible in evidence. The plaintiff filed his rejoinder rebutting the contentions raised by the defendant and giving the history and the details of the consideration. The rest of the contentions, are not material for our purpose. The learned trial Judge, on the evidence placed before him by the partie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2001Bom409; 2002(1)ALLMR171; 2001(4)BomCR114; (2001)3BOMLR777
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. In the Summary Suit in which the present Summons for Judgment has been instituted, the claim of the Plaintiffs for a decree in the sum of Pound Sterling 1,21,115.63 with further interest at 18% per annum on the principal amount of Pound Sterling 88,284.64. At the prevailing rate of exchange when the suit came to be instituted, the claim has been valued at Rs. 84,78,094/-. The claim in the suit is based on three Bills of Exchange drawn by the Plaintiff and accepted by the First Defendant. The First Defendant is a partnership firm of which the Second to Fifth Defendants are partners.2. The Plaintiff supplied to the First Defendant three consignments of Bronze Powder under three invoices these being (i) an invoice dated 21st March, 1996 for Pound Sterling 38,970/-, (ii) an invoice dated 11th April. 1996 for Pound Sterling 38,970 and (iii) an invoice dated 1st May, 1996 for Pound Sterling 30,344/-. The Plaintiff drew three Bills of Exchange which were duly accept...
Tag this Judgment!