SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1974 Supreme(AP) 89

P.RAMACHANDRA RAJU
B. V. R. Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Adoni Co-operative Central Stores Ltd. – Respondent


RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 13/68 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Adoni is the petitioner. In the suit, he filed a document which was found to be a lease deed requiring payment of stamp duty and registration. The Court below directed the petitioner to pay the required stamp duty and penalty. But instead of complying with that order, the petitioner filed an application under Section 38 ( of the Indian Stamp Act to send the same to the Collector so that he may determine and collect the proper duty and penalty payable on the document. This, the lower Court refused by holding that the document cannot now be sent to the Collector under Section 38 (2) of the Stamp Act as the Civil Court is the competent authority to decide as to the amount of stamp duty and penalty to be collected. It is true as provided under Section 35 of the Stamp Act no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose unless such instrument is duly stamped. It is also provided in Section 35 of the Act that except with regard to the instruments mentioned therein, the other documents can be admitted in evidence on payment of duty and penalty as m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top