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

2006 Supreme(Cal) 123

PRATAP KUMAR RAY
SHYAMAL KUMAR ROY – Appellant
Versus
SUSHIL KUMAR AGARWAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
AMITAV DAS, DALI SEKAR PRADHAN, GURUPADA DAS, SANDIP DAS, SAPTANGSU BASU, UTTAM KUMAR BHATTACHARYA

PRATAP KR. RAY, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

( 2 ) IN this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, only question has been raised that once any document is admitted in evidence and marked as 'exhibit', subsequently such order whether could be recalled for impounding the instrument in absence of the payment of proper stamp-duty. By the impugned order dated 23rd June, 2005 of this application passed by learned 2nd Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barasat in Title Suit No. 4 of 1999, learned Trial Court refused to recall the order dated 17th February, 2003, as per prayer of defendant-petitioner thereto for impounding the agreement, which was exhibited and marked dispensing with formal proof of document.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that as the concerned document being an instrument was not properly stamped, the same was inadmissible in evidence and as such prayer to recall the order dated 17th February, 2003 whereby and whereunder the concerned document was admitted in evidence dispensing with the formal proof of the document and marked as 'exhibit". To adjudicate the point, the Court need not to detain itself as there i




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