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

1955 Supreme(Bom) 267

Y.V.DIXIT, M.C.CHAGLA
Rohini Chandrakant Vijayakar – Appellant
Versus
A. I. Fernandes – Respondent


Judgment

1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff on a promissory note. The promissory note was executed by defendants 1 and 2 and the trial Court admitted the promissory note as against defendant 1, passed a decree in favour or the plaintiff against defendant 1, and dismissed the suit against defendant 2. The plaintiff has now come in appeal.

2. The promissory note bears the signature of both the defendants, taut it is admitted by the plaintiff that when defendants 1 and 2 signed the promissory note it did not bear the requisite stamps and the requisite stamps were affixed subsequently and they were cancelled by defendant 1. On this admitted position the question arises whether in law this promissory note is admissible in evidence as against defendant 2.

When we look at the scheme of the Stamp Act, it is clear that the Stamp Act does not contemplate the execution of an unstamped document in India when the document is chargeable to duty and as we shall presently point out, the Stamp Act requires every document which is chargeable to duty and which is executed in India to be executed after it is duly stamped and the consequence of a document being executed which is



















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