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

2000 Supreme(SC) 1989

K.T.THOMAS, R.P.SETHI
PETETI SUBBA RAO – Appellant
Versus
ANUMALA S. NARENDRA – Respondent


( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) A document was produced by the appellant in a suit which is now pending before the trial court. As the document was found to be falling within Explanation 1 of Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp act (for short "the Act") as amended by the State of Andhra Pradesh, the trial court passed an order, the operative portion of which reads thus:"accordingly, for all the aforesaid reasons it is held that the agreement of sale dated 7-9-1992 is exigible to stamp duty as a sale under the Explanation to Article 47-A in Schedule 1-A to the Stamp Act and the point is accordingly decided in favour of the defendant. Admittedly, the agreement of sale is not stamped as required by the explanation to Article 47-A in Schedule 1-A to the Stamp Act. The office is therefore directed to calculate the deficit stamp duty and penalty payable on the suit agreement of sale dated 7-9-1992 treating it as a sale on a total consideration of Rs 16,50,000 mentioned in the agreement in accordance with Section 35 of the Stamp Act and issue a demand to the plaintiffs of the same. The plaintiffs shall deposit such stamp duty and penalty within a month from the date of receipt of








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