Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959AP664
ORDER1. This application for the issue of a writ of certiorari or Mandamus, as the case may be, raises the question whether the Assistant Registrar of Joint stock Companies had exercised his jurisdiction properly in impounding the document land adjudicating the stamp duty thereon. The petitioner entered into an agreement on 21-3-1954 with Raka Corporation Ltd., Madras, a private limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act 1913, agreeing to appoint the latter as its sales agent and sole distributors on certain terms, which it is unnecessary for the purposes of this writ to consider.Pursuant to Sections 109 and 277 of the Companies Act, the particulars of the intending charge which the agreement created were furnished to the Assistant Registrar, Eluru, West Godavari District. The agreement dated 21-5-1954 was also sent to him as per his direction. The Assistant Registrar required particulars of She transactions and in reply to his reference dated 6-7-1954, the applicant sub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960AP155
M. Seshachelapati, J. 1. This Second Appeal is against the decision of the learned Additional District Judge, East Godavari, in A. S. 42 of 1953 on his file which in turn arises out of O. S. No. 25 of 1951 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Rajahmundry. 2. The defendants 1 and 2 in the suit are the appellants in this appeal. The 1st defendant is a registered partnership firm doing business at Tade-pallingudam under the name and style of 'Sree Rama Varaprasada Rice Mill and Prabhat Oil Works.' The second defendant is the Managing partner of the 1st defendant-firm. Defendants 3 to 7 are the other partners of the firm. In this appeal they have been impleadcd as respondents 4 to 7. On 7-9-1947, the second defendant, who is the second appellant in this appeal, executed two hun-dies (Ex. A-1 and A-2) as the Managing partner of the 1st defendant-firm in sums of Rs. 2,000/- each in favour of one Sajjandas Khialdas, a banker doing money lending business at Rajahmundry for considerati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960AP115; [1960]38ITR93(AP)
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The principal question raised in all these petitions relate to the constitutionality of the Gift Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in so far as it seeks to levy tax on gifts of agricultural land.2. The Act was passed by the Parliament in the beginning of 1958 and received the assent of the President on 15-5-1958. The report of the Indian Taxation Enquiry Commission, 1953-54 to the Government of India considered the introduction of gift tax in India. The commission remarked that a gift tax though appeared in theory to be an attractive proposition, required considerable experience of the opinion of Estate duty before it could be introduced in this country. A year or two later Prof. Kalder, Reader in Economics. University of Cambridge was invited by the Government of India to examine this question and he made his report to the Union Government in March 1956.His proposal was that a single integrated tax should he imposed on sifts of all kinds (including und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961AP424
Anantanarayana Ayyar, J. 1. This is a petition to revise the order of the District Munsiff, Kollapur dated 26-3-1959 holding that the two documents which had been filed by the defendant in that suit were contracts of sale and not agreements of sale and ordering as follows: '.......Definitely they are contracts of sale which require stamp according to Article 16 of the Hyderabad Stamp Act. Sheristadar is directed to calculate the penalty and submit. Party producing them to deposit the penalty as levies by the Court. In case the party fails to deposit the penalties the documents shall be impounded and sent to the Collector for necessary action. For evidence of defendant call on 11-4-1959.' 2. Two contentions have been raised before me as follows: 1. That the two documents are not sales but agreements to sell. 2. That the learned District Munsiff erred in ordering payment of stamp duty and penalty before the stage of admission of documents in evidence was reached. 3. POINT NO. 1 : Both t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1973AP48
Ekbote, C.J.1. The document marked P-2 executed in 1968 was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar , Bhimavaram on 7.3.1968 by the executants. The document calls itself a sale deed. It is drawn up on stamp papers of value of Rs. 6,525/-. The Sub-Registrar, Bhimavaram, before whom this document was presented for registration entertained a doubt about the exact stamp duty payable on the document. He therefore made a reference to the District Registrar of Assurances, Eluru. The district registers held that the said document to be a sale for consideration of Rs. 1,44,444.44 chargeable with a stamp duty of Rs. 6,525/- under Art. 20 of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp act. He was also of the opinion that a transfer duty of Rs. 7,222.20 is payable under Section 120 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities act, 1965.2. As the document was insufficiently stamped it was impounded by the Sub-Registrar and the District Registrar, Eluru, as Collector levied deficit stamp duty of Rs. 7,199....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1973AP300
ORDER1. This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff-petitioner given rise to a short question of law relating to the scope and application on Section 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.2. The material admitted facts which lie in a short compass leading upto this revision may briefly stated. The petitioner sued for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit properties on the ground that he is the illegitimate son of late Kuncham Chidambaram, the paternal grandfather of the first defendant, in the Court of the District Judge, Visakapatnam, in the year 1971. Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 were minors represented by their guardian and natural father the first defendant. The first defendant's father late Krishnamurthy gifted some property on 11-11-1957 under a registered gift deed to the plaintiff. That apart, about three tolas of gold, Rs. 1,800 /- cash and two bulls worth about Rs. 300 /- were said to have been given by late Kris...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1975AP91
Sriramulu, J. 1. O. S. No. 14 of 1962 was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam, by the wife against her husband (defendant No. 1) husband's adopted son (defendant No. 2) and husband's brother (defendant No. 3) for the recovery of possession of the two items of plaint A' schedule properties which consisted of wet land measuring Ac. 6-88 cents in Medur village, and for past and future mesne profits, on the basis or the registered gift-deed dated 11-9-1951 executed in her favour by her husband, defendant No. 1,2. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the said gift deed was executed under coercion and was, therefore, not valid and binding on them. Defendant No. 2 claimed rights to the plaint schedule properties of defendant No. 1 as the adopted son of D-l. Defendant No. 3, the brother of defendant No. 1, claimed rights to some of the properties of the 1st defendant on the basis of certain gift deeds.3. The trial Court held that the gift-deed, on the basis o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1985AP390
P. Chennakesav Reddy, Actg. C.J.1. The question referred to us for decision by the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and land Records, Hyderabad and the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under S. 57 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' i.e. whether stamp duty in the case should be levied in accordance with Art. 31 (a) (iv) of Schedule I-A of the Act.2. The facts giving rise to the reference are short and simple: a partnership firm by name National Art Pictures, Vijayawada, represented by its Managing partner C. Jaganmohan Rao, a film distributor, executed an agreement of lease dated 21-12-1970 in favour of C.R.K. Prasad, son of Jaganmohan Rao. The lease related to the exclusive rights of distribution, exploitation, screening and exhibiting the picture called 'Babruvahana' for a period of fifteen years commencing from 21-12-1970 for a lump sum of Rs.90, 000/- for the area comprised within the entire State of Andhra Pradesh. The agreement was not execute...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1986AP3
P. Kodandaramayya, J.1. The Commissioner of Survey Settlements and Land Revenue Records, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad , as the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority made this reference under Sec. 57 of the Indian Stamp Act 2 of 1899 (hereinafter called the Act). The reference is in the following terms.Whether the document Ex. B. 4 should be levied under Article 48 of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The facts, leading to the reference are briefly as follows :-2. One Potta Appalaraju, owner of lorry A. P. S. 2486 approached this court and obtained a direction in a writ petition that the District Panchayat Officer should release his lorry seized by the said officer on condition that the lorry owner should execute a personal bond for a particular sum and a third party also should execute a bond giving immovable property as security for a like sum. In pursuance of the said order, one Manda Suryakanthamma executed the security bond in question agreeing that 'in case the lorry owner Sr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1985AP391
P. Chennakesav Reddy, Actg.C.J.1. On 20-12-1976 a document was presented to the Sub-Registrar, Bheemunipatnam by the Chittavalasa Jute Mills, the petitioner before us, for registration. The document was engrossed on a stamp paper of Rs.5/-. But the document was styled as a 'deed of hypothecation' for Rs. 10 lakhs. Therefore, the Sub-Registrar impounded the document and referred the matter to the District Registrar, Visakhaptanam, for classification of the document and chargeability of the document with stamp duty. The District Registrar by his order dt. 11-3-1977 held it was a mortgage without possession for Rs. 10 lakhs and was chargeable with stamp duty of Rs. 30,000/- under Art. 35(b) of Sch.1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He therefore ordered the recovery of the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 29,995/- and a penalty of Rs.1,000/- a total of Rs. 30,995/- under S. 40 of the Act, and informed the Sub-Registrar accordingly. Aggrieved against the said...
Tag this Judgment!