Kerala HC Issues Notice to Digi Yatra Foundation in PIL Seeking Strict Compliance with DPDP Act 2023 for Airport Passenger Data: High Court of Kerala
07 Mar 2026
Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
CJI Kant: Action Needed for More Women Judges
10 Mar 2026
N. SATHISH KUMAR
Cybercity Builders and Developers Private Limited Cyber City, Green Hills Road – Appellant
Versus
Inspector General of Registration – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
Challenge has been made to the impugned proceedings dated 01.12.2023, quash the same and direct the first respondent to return the document bearing No.328/2023 pending on the file of third respondent.
2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner company sold land admeasuring an extent of 1 acre 12 cents to the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent entrusted the development of the property into a mall to the petitioner and for that purpose a leave and license agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. The said leave and license agreement stipulated that the object of th deed was about a future lease on a building which would come up in the future with the lease commencing after completion of Building (Estimated completion time-line is Two years from the date of agreement) at a monthly rental of Rs.1,22,50,000/- for a period of nine years starting from 10.08.2026. According to the petitioner, the building itself is intended to be taken on leave and license has not come into existence and the agreement is only a promise to enter into lease once the
An agreement for a future lease contingent on construction does not constitute a lease and cannot be impounded for stamp duty until the property exists.
Stamp duty is on instrument and not on transaction – For several documents to form part of a single transaction, there must be a transaction in furtherance of which several other documents are execut....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the nature of the document, the requirement for registration and stamp duty, and the duty of the Court to ensure compliance w....
Documents must be duly stamped to be admissible in evidence; the court has the authority to impound insufficiently stamped documents under the Karnataka Stamp Act.
The court established that insufficiently stamped documents cannot be admitted in evidence unless the required stamp duty and penalties are paid, emphasizing the distinct roles of courts and the Dist....
The court confirmed that a document evidencing possession transfers its status from an agreement to a conveyance, thus imposing requisite stamp duty as per statutory provisions.
Agreement to sell – Impounding an agreement to sell of an immovable property after 23 years of its alleged execution, where execution itself is disputed and which was never presented for registration....
A document admitted in evidence cannot be questioned for insufficiency of stamp duty, but courts have a mandatory duty to impound such documents regardless of any objections raised.
Purushotham Nath Rallan vs. Inspector General of Registration reported in 2018 (1) CTC 309
-
Read summaryUttar Pradesh and others vs. Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan reported in AIR 1961 SC 787
-
Read summaryKerala High Court in the case of Abdul Rasheed vs. State of Kerala reported in 2018 (3) KLT 137
-
Read summarySuryamukhi Devi vs. Shiv Prasad and others reported in 2002 (5) M.P.L.J 159
-
Read summaryGovernment of Andhra Pradesh and others vs. P.Laxmi Devi reported in 2008 (4) SCC 720.
-
Read summaryTirupathi Developers vs. The State of Uttarkhand and others reported in 2013 (9) SCC 332.
-
Read summaryICICI vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (1999) 5 SCC 708
-
Read summaryM.C. Chagla
-
Read summary
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.