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

1928 Supreme(Cal) 293

RANKIN, SUHRAWARDY, MUKHERJI, MUKERJI, CAMMIADE, B. B. GHOSE
In Re: Stamp Act – Appellant
Versus
. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Rankin, C.J. - This is a Reference made to us under the provisions of Section 57, Stamp Act. It would appear that certain, instruments were presented on behalf of the holder for adjudication as to whether it was necessary that they should be stamped u/s 19, Stamp Act. The documents of which three in number are before us may be sufficiently exemplified by choosing one of the three. The one which I shall choose is a document in the form in which bills of exchange are accustomed to be couched. It is headed "Imperial Bank of India." It is addressed from Calcutta. It is signed as drawer by the Secretary and Treasurer and the Accountant of the Imperial Bank of India. It is addressed to the Imperial Bank of India, Lahore, as the addressee or drawee and it is made payable to a third party, the Commercial Syndicate Ltd. or order. It will be observed, upon a strict reading of the instrument, that there are two parties and only two parties-the Imperial Bank of India on the one hand and the payee, the Commercial Syndicate Ltd., on the other. The question is whether these instruments are required to be stamped by virtue of the terms of the Stamp Act as amended recently by the Finance Ac

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