Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1965Guj1; (1964)GLR671(GJ)
Shelat, C.J. (1) By his letter dated May 31 1961, the Inspector General of Registration, without framing any specific questions, has made to us the present Reference. Though specific questions have not been raised, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Revenue has agreed that in substance the following question would arise from this Reference. The question which can be culled out from the reference is whether the Collector is entitled, for the purpose of ascertaining the adequacy or other wise of the amount of stamp duty paid on the deed of conveyance in question submitted for registration, to go behind the consideration set out therein and ascertain the true amount or the value of consideration on which the stamp duty is payable.(2) The Reference arise from the following facts: By an agreement dated April 22, 1959 made between Bharat Vijay Mills Ltd .,of the one part and The Ahmadabad of the other part ,the Bharat Vijay Mills Ltd., agreed to sell and The Ahmedabad agreed to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1965)6GLR893
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. The only question which is raised in this Second Appeal is about the correctness of the decision recorded by the two Courts that the instrument dated 30th December 1951 was a promissory note within the meaning of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 (XI of 1899) (hereafter called the Act) and as such inadmissible in evidence. Plaintiff-appellant brought the suit from which the Second Appeal arises for recovering a sum of Rs. 769-4-0 from defendant respondent The claim was based on the aforesaid document dated 20th December 1951 When the document was sought to be got admitted in the trial Court defendant raised an objection that as the document was a promissory note within the meaning of Section 2 Sub-section (22) of the Act and as it was not stamped as required by Article 49 of the Act the same was not admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Act. This contention was upheld by the trial Court and on that finding the suit of plaintiff was dismissed. Plaintiff preferred an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1992)1GLR654
M.B. Shah, J.1. In this group of petitions, the validity of Section 76 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, which is enacted after obtaining the President's assent on June 1958, and Sections 32A and 32B read with Article 20(a) and (b) of Schedule I to the Act as amended by the Gujarat Act 21 of 1982, is challenged on various grounds. By amendment of Article 20(a) and (b), it is provided that the Stamp Duty on conveyance is to be charged on the basis of the consideration for such conveyance or, as the case may be, the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of such conveyance whichever is greater.2. The learned Advocate for the petitioners raised the following contentions at the time of hearing of these matters:I. Section 76 of the Bombay Stamp Act read with Schedule II insofar as it repeals the Central Act (Indian Stamp Act, 1899) is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature.II (a) It is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature to amend Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1994)2GLR1357
M.B. Shah, J.1. An agreement executed on 5th February, 1979 between M/s. Vishal Malleables Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and having its registered office at G.I.D.C. Industrial Estate, Ankleshwar, District Broach (First Part), Gujarat State Financial Corporation (G.S.F.C. - Second Part), Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. (G.I.I.C. - Third Part) and the Bank of Baroda (Fourth Part), was registered with the Sub-Registrar of Ankleshwar on 8th February, 1979 at Sr. No. 82. The said instrument was executed by affixing a Stamp Duty of Rs. 10/- as if it was an agreement as provided under Article 6 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 ('the Stamp Act' for short). At the time of audit of the Sub-Registrar's Office, the Deputy Accountant General referred to the said instrument and arrived at the conclusion that the instrument was not evidencing the deposit of title deeds or pari passu agreement between the financial institutions and the company but it contained ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1971Guj252; (1971)0GLR280
D.P. Desai, J.1. The only question raised in this Appeal is the question of limitation and that question depends upon the admissibility of a document produced at Ex. 34/1 in the lower Court which is dated 27-10-1954 and which has been held by the Lower Court to be an unstamped promissory note and as such inadmissible in evidence. For the purpose of this appeal only a few facts may be stated as bearing upon this question.2. The present appellants who were plaintiffs before the lower Court filed Special Civil Suit No. 12 of 1961 from which this appeal arises, on March 7, 1961 for recovery of a total amount of Rs. 14,399-60p. As per the amended plaint, the case of the plaintiffs was that the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs. 11,638 from the plaintiffs on 10-10-1954 i.e. the writing at Ex. 34/1, on the admissibility of which the question of limitation depends in the present case. According to the plaintiffs, demand of the dues under this oral loan were made after this writing but the def...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1994)2GLR1268
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 24th December, 1992, passed by the 5th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Surat, below application Ex. 100, in Regular Civil Suit No. 497 of 1964, by which the document which was produced at Ex. 97 was impounded, holding that it was liable to stamp duty of Rs. 75,590/- and a penalty of Rs. 7,55,900/-.The petitioner instituted the suit for specific performance of an agreement to lease dated 10-3-1983 by directing the respondents to place the petitioner in possession of two floors of the premises bearing Nondh 2509 situated at Ward No. 4, Surat. It appears that during the proceedings the document dated 10-3-1983 was produced and exhibited at Ex. 97. Thereafter, the respondents made application Ex. 100 on 11-8-1992 contending that the document could not be admitted in evidence as it was not registered nor was it properly stamped. The application was contested by the petitioner contending that the said document was only a memo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1997)1GLR426
S.D. Shah, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Unjha in Regular Civil Suit No. 236 of 1990 dated 2-2-1995. By the impugned order the learned trial Judge has refused to exhibit document at Exh. 85/6 which purports to be a writing or agreement executed between deceased Mangaldas Shivram and Mohanlal Joitaram Oza on 3-1-1969. Said agreement is executed on a stamped paper of Rs. 1.75 ps. During the evidence of witness Mohanlal Joitaram Oza being witness No. 2 for the plaintiff, in the examination-in-chief the said document dated 3-1-1969 was shown to the witness Mohanlal Joitaram Oza. Said witness deposed that he has signed below the agreement as well as another signature is that of deceased Mangaldas Shivram. He also stated that the said agreement was with respect to prohibition against putting up construction of lavatory on Otla. He also deposed that the said writing was acceptable to him as well as to deceased Mangaldas Shrivram. He also state...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1975)16GLR31
J.B. Mehta, J.1. Defendant No. I company challenges in this revision application the order of the trial Judge holding that Clause 8 of the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1, dated May 9, 1964 did not operate as an absolute bar to the jurisdiction of the Bhuj Court, and that he had discretion in such a case to entertain a suit as otherwise great hardship and inconvenience would result to the parties if this suit was not be proceeded with in the Court at Bhuj. The plaintiff-contractor-firm had taken a building contract for constructing flourmill and office premises of defendant No. 1 company at Adipur as per the agreement, dated May 9, 1964. The relevant Clause 8 provides as under:All disputes arising out of or in any way connected with this agreement shall be deemed to have arisen in Delhi and only Courts at Delhi shall have jurisdiction to determine the same.The plaintiff-contractor having not been paid its dues for construction in question, and as defendant No. 1 had...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2002)176CTR(Guj)193
M.S. Shah, J.The petitioner is a registered association of the stamp vendors of Ahmedabad As the officers of the income-tax department called upon the State Government to deduct tax at source under section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) on commission or brokerage to the persons carrying on the business as 'stamp vendors', the petitioner-association has approached this court with a prayer to quash and set aside the communication at Annexure 'D' collectively, and for a declaration that section 194H of the Act is not applicable to an assessee carrying on business as a stamp vendor.2. In response to the notice, an affidavit-in- reply has been filed by the Commissioner Ahmedabad-II for justifying the invocation of section 194H of the Act.3. By the Finance Act, 2001, section 194H was inserted in the Act with effect from 1-6-2001. The section reads as under :'194H. Commission or brokerageAny person, not being an individual or an HUF, who is responsible ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2002)3GLR613; [2002]257ITR202(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. The petitioner is a registered association of the stamp vendors of Ahmedabad. As the officers of the Income-tax Department called upon the State Government to deduct tax at source under Section 194H of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on commission or brokerage to the persons carrying on the business as 'stamp vendors', the petitioner-association has approached this court with a prayer to quash and set aside the communication at annexure D collectively, and for a declaration that Section 194H of the Act is not applicable to an assessee carrying on business as a stamp vendor.In response to the notice, an affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad-II, for justifying the invocation of Section 194H of the Act.By the Finance Act, 2001, Section 194H was inserted in the Act with effect from June 1, 2001. The section reads as under :'194H. Commission or brokerage.--Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu...
Tag this Judgment!