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!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC166; 2007(6)ALLMR(SC)930; 2007(4)AWC4121(SC); (SCSuppl)2007(4)CHN97; 2008(3)CTC457; JT2007(12)SC49; 2008(1)MPHT156(SC); 2007(11)SCALE705; (2007)8SCC514; 2007AIRSCW6368
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. Leave granted.2. The facts necessary for deciding the question involved in the case are that one Maganlal Jain was the original tenant of Prakash Chand Malviya, the respondent- landlord. Maganlal Jain had given the shop to the appellant for carrying out the business. On a dispute being arisen between the respondent-landlord, the original tenant Maganlal Jain and the appellant herein, an agreement was executed on 28.3.1988 by the respondent (landlord) and the appellant (subsequent tenant), whereby the landlord tenanted the shop to the appellant on payment of an advance amount of Rs.4,75,000/- which was received by the landlord in cash in front of the witnesses. The agreement further provided that in case the landlord requires eviction of the tenant from the shop he will have to give notice of 6 months to the tenant and will also refund the payment of Rs.4,75,000/- to the tenant. On the other hand, if the tenant wants to vacate the shop he will have to give prior noti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 162(2009)DLT396
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. As identical issues arise for consideration, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 427/2005 filed by M/s. Ashok Kamal Capital Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2663/2005 filed by M/s. Dyer's Stone Lime Company Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Capital Builders and Dyer's Stone respectively, for short) are being disposed of this by this common judgment.2. Dyer's Stone purchased property No. 10, Alipur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi (herein after referred to as the property, for short) from the erstwhile owners vide sale deed dated 3rd December, 1956.3. On 30th October, 1985 Dyer's Stone obtained permission from Delhi Administration (Land & Building Department) to develop the property as a group housing project. On 23rd December, 1987, Dyer's Stone entered into an agreement with the Capital Builders for development and construction of dwelling units. The dwelling units were constructed and sold to various third parties on execution of registered sale deeds. Requisite...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC186; [2005]126CompCas356(SC); 2004(5)CTC376; JT2004(9)SC379; 2004(9)SCALE215; (2005)1SCC496
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 11607/2001.2. Section 73 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as incorporated by Andhra Pradesh Act No. 17 of 1986, by amending the Central Act in its application to the State, has been struck down by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh as ultra vires the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act as also of Article 14 of the Constitution. The District Registrar and Collector, Registration and Stamps Department, Hyderabad and the Assistant Registrar have come up in appeal by special leave.Relevant Statutory Provisions under the Central Act : 3. Section 73 of the Indian Stamp Act (before the insertion of the text under the impugned State Legislation in its applicability to the State of Andhra Pradesh) reads as under:-'73. Every public officer having in his custody any registers, books, records, papers, documents or proceedings, the inspection whereof may tend to secure any duty, or to prove or lead to the discovery of any fraud or omission in relation to a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The only point for consideration here is, whether or not the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was justified in declaring Clause (d), Article 45 of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, '1899 Act') which was brought in by the Indian Stamp (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2002 (for short, 'M.P. 2002 Act') as unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. The above point arises in this way. Two writ petitions came to be filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. In both writ petitions initially it was prayed that Clauses (f) and (f-1), Article 48, Schedule 1-A brought in the 1899 Act by Section 3 of the Indian Stamp (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1997 (for short, 'M.P. 1997 Act') be declared ultra vires. During the pendency of these petitions, the 1899 Act as applicable to Madhya Pradesh was further amended by the M.P. 2002 Act. The respondents, referred to as writ petitioners, amended their writ petitions a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
JUDGMENT1. The second defendant in the suit filed this appeal as against the judgement and decree dated 4.8.2000 passed by the learned the V Additional City Civil Judge, Madras, in O.S.No.1927 of 1996, which was filed for declaration and for obtaining delivery of vacant possession of the property described in the schedule of the plaint.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:(a) The first plaintiff-Dr.E.Rajyasree in the suit was represented by her power of Attorney-Mr.A.Jayagopal, who also represented the minor second plaintiff minor E.Navin Emmadi as his next friend. The plaintiffs filed the suit originally as against D1-the father-in-law of the first plaintiff, so to say, the father of her deceased husband, namely, Venkatakrishna Emmadi, with the fol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2003AP525
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order and decree, dated 20-02-2002, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, dismissing the application in I.A.No.55 of 2002 in O.S.No.16 of 2001, filed under Section-151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to permit the petitioners to mark the documents, dated 29-07-1983 and 21-05-1986 as exhibits for collateral purpose to prove the nature of their possession under the said documents after collecting necessary stamp duty and penalty, if any, on those documents. 2. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs. The suit is filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction.3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit. 4. The whole dispute is between the wife of the illatom son-in-law and two brothers who are the grand children of one late Pitchi Reddy. 5. It appears that late Pitchi Reddy agreed to give the alleged illatom son-in-law by nam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2009)13SCC301; 2009(2)LHSC1213; 2009(2)JT592
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. This appeal relates to the stamp duty payable in regard to a deed of trust dated 9.8.1991 executed by the appellant and his two brothers. The executants paid a stamp duty of Rs. 1,325/ thereon, under Article 64 of Schedule I-B to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as amended in U.P. (`Act' for short). The registering authority being of the view that it was not duly stamped, impounded it and referred it to the adjudicating authority. The said Authority made an order that the deed also answered the definition of 'settlement' as defined under Section 2(24) of the Act, and therefore stamp duty was payable under Article 58 of Schedule I-B of the Act on the declared value of the trust property (Rs. 2,10,000/-). He directed recovery of deficit stamp duty of Rs. 10,225/- and an equal amount as penalty. The said order was challenged by the appellant by filing a revision before the Chief Controller (Board of Revenue), Allahahad. The revisional authority dismissed the revision by or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1541; 20083ALD112SC; 20082AWC1374SC; SCSuppl20082CHN97; 20081CTLJ324SC; 20082KLT267SC; 20082MLJ1115SC; 20082SCALE630; 20084SCC530
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. This appeal by special leave is by the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance - OS No.290/1980 on the file of District Munsiff, Tindivanam.Pleadings2. In the plaint, the plaintiff (appellant) alleged that the first defendant (Adilakshmi) agreed to sell the suit schedule property to him under an agreement of sale dated 5.1.1980 for a consideration of Rs.3,000/-, and received Rs.2,000/- as advance. She agreed to execute a sale deed by receiving the balance consideration of Rs.1,000/- within three months. Possession of the suit property was delivered to him, under the said agreement. He issued a notice dated 14.2.1980 calling upon the first defendant to receive the balance price and execute the sale deed. The first defendant sent a reply denying the agreement. To avoid performing the agreement of sale, the first defendant executed a nominal sale deed in regard to the suit property in favour of the second defendant (first respondent herein), who was her close re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1991]189ITR192(Mad)
1. In all these writ petitions, the main point relates to the validity of Section 2(4) of Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1987 by which the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act. 1908 had been amended. The writ petitioners have sought for declaration that the amendments are ultra vires, unconstitutional and void. The circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Madras dated 9-12-1988 is also assailed as illegal and invalid.2. The averments in the affidavit filed in the first of the writ petitions are referred to here under :Petitioner is engaged in the business of constructing flats in the city of Madras. It sells undivided share of lands to prospective builders-purchasers under registered sale deeds. Thereafter, purchasers build their flats at their own expenses. Hitherto stamp duty was collected only on the value of the undivided share in the land. Consequent to amended provisions, stamp duty is demanded on the cost of proposed const ruction of a flat, which is unconstitu...
Tag this Judgment!