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

2005 Supreme(All) 1792

JANARDAN SAHAI
UMESH KUMAR GUPTA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ANKUR MITTAL, BALAJI PATHAK

( 1 ) THE petitioner had taken a loan from the Punjab National Bank. The case of the petitioners is that the loan secured by a mortgage by deposit of title deeds on 18-11-2004 and to evidence this transaction the petitioner executed a document titled as memorandum of Mortgage by way of deposit of title deed on 12-1-2005. The question in this case is whether this instrument dated 12-1-2005 is a mortgage deed covered under Art. 40 (b) of Schedule 1b of the Indian Stamp Act or is it an agreement relating to the deposit of title deeds covered under Art. 6 of Sch. 1-B. The revenue authorities treating the instrument as a mortgage deed have found that there is a deficiency of Rs. 4,90,000/- in stamp duty and have also imposed penalty of like amount and interest of Rs. 14,700/ -.

( 2 ) SECTION 2 (17) of the Indian Stamp Act defines a mortgage-deed. It is quoted here under :"2. Definitions. In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context (17) "mortgage-deed", "mortgage-deed" includes every instrument whereby, for the purpose of securing money advanced, or to be advanced, by way of loan, or an existing or future debt, or the performance of an engagement, one perso

















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