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

2001 Supreme(Kar) 53

V.G.SABHAHIT, R.V.RAVEENDRAN
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD – Appellant
Versus
R. ANANTHALAKSHMI – Respondent


Advocates:
O.Mahesh, T.V.Srinivasa Murthy

RAVEENDRAN, J, J.

( 1 ) AS. I and II (for condonation of delay and for stay) are supported by affidavits sworn to before a Notary Public. The Registry has raised an objection that the affidavits are defective "as they have not been affixed with Notarial stamps as required under Article 36 of the schedule to the Karnataka Stamps Act, 1957 ('act' for short)

( 2 ) THE Office objections was answered by stating that affidavits to be filed in Courts were exempt from stamp duty; and therefore there was no need to affix any Notarial stamps to such affidavits. As the Registry is not satisfied the matter is placed before us for orders.

( 3 ) RELEVANT portions of Articles 4 and 36 of the Schedule to karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 ('stamp Act' for short) read as follows: article Description of instrument proper Stamp Duty 4 Affidavit, including an affirmation or declaration in the case of persons by law allowed to affirm or declare instead of Swearing. Exemptions: Affidavit or declaration in writing, when made, (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) for the immediate purpose of being filed or used in any Court or before the office of any Court; or Twenty, Rupees Article description of instrument Proper Stamp Duty (c) x










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