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 : AIR1966Guj175; (1965)GLR554
Bhagwati, J.1. This petition challenges a determination made by the Collector under Section 31 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. The determination came to he made by the Collector under the following circumstances. The first and second petitioners owned a piece of land admeasuring 55 square yards situate at Lal Darwaja in the city of Ahmedabad. They agreed to grant a lease of the said piece of land to the third petitioner on the terms and conditions contained in a draft indenture of lease which was agreed upon between the parties. The third petitioner brought the draft indenture of lease to the Collector and applied to have the opinion of the Collector as to the duty with which it was chargeable under Section 31 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. This application was made on 20th June 1961 and was accompanied by the requisite fee directed by the Collector. On receipt of the application, it appears, the Collector felt doubt as to the amount of duty with which the draft indenture of lease was c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1967Guj7; (1965)GLR893
(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 instruments, dated 30th December 1951, was a promissory note within the meaning of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (XI of 1899). (Hereinafter 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 30th December, 1951. When the document was sought to be got admitted in the trail 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 a required by Art.49 of the act, the same was not admissible in evidence under S.35 of the Act. This contention was upheld by the trail court and, on that finding, the suit of plaintiff was dismissed plaintiff preferred an appeal 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 : AIR1966Guj227; (1966)0GLR282
Shelat, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 54 of the Bombay Stamp Act LX of 1958. The questions referred to us under the reference are--(1) Whether the agreement to which merely a passing reference has been made in the sale deed and which is not an adjunct to the sale deed can be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing stamp duty;(2) Whether in absence of any mention regarding apportionment of mortgage debt as encumbrances over the immovable and movable properties, the party can escape stamp duty over the mortgage amount at all;(3) In the case under consideration whether the stamp duty should be Rs. 24,000 or Rs. 96,000.Questions (1) and (2) are not pressed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader and therefore it is only the third question that remains to be considered. The answer to that question turns on the true and proper interpretation of some of the clauses of the deed of conveyance entered into on October 3, 1968 be...
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 : AIR1976Guj72; (1976)GLR210
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The main question with which we are concerned in the present reference to the Full Bench is whether the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Prabhudas v. Bhogilal, (1967) 8 Guj LR 649 : : AIR1968Guj236 is overruled by necessary implication by, the decision of the Supreme Court in M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapu : [1973]1SCR697 .2.This Civil Revision first came up for final hearing before one of us on October 16, 1973 and at that time in view of the decisions in Civil Revn. Appln. No. 731 of 1967 decided on 11-1-1967 (Guj) and M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapu : [1973]1SCR697 (supra) and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Prabhudas v. Bhogilal : AIR1968Guj236 (supra) the matter was referred to a Division Bench. Thereafter the matter came up for hearing before the Division Bench consisting of M. U. Shah and B. K. Mehta, JJ and by their referring judgment dated December 19, 1973 the Division Bench referred the case to larger bench in view of the decision of ...
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 : AIR1994Guj153
Panchal, J. 1. This is a reference made under Section 54(1A) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (Bombay Act No. 60 of 1958) by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, who dismissed the revision application against the order passed by the Collector of Stamps, Surat imposing a duty of Rs. 27,191.50 Ps. (Rupees twenty seven thousand one hundred ninety one and fifty paise) together with a penalty of Rs. 5/- (five) on an agreement purportedly relating to deposit of title deeds, which came to the notice of the Collector of Stamps, Surat. 2. FACTS :- The applicant -- M/s. Shailesh Textile Industries is a registered partnership firm and carries on business in textile through its 7 partners. The applicant-firm wanted to avail of loan and credit facilities and, therefore, approached Dena Bank, which is a corporate Body and a nationalised bank under the provisions of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'Dena Bank...
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!