My Name Is Randy Orton
| No limitation for use of stamp paper |
Posted on 14 April 2008 by Prakash Yedhula | CourtSupreme Court of IndiaBriefNo impediment for a stamp paper purchased more than six months prior to the proposed date of execution, being used for a documentCitationJudgementIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 290 of 2001
Decided On: 19.02.2008
Appellants: Thiruvengada Pillai
Vs.
Respondent: Navaneethammal and Anr.
Hon'ble Judges:
R.V. Raveendran and P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Sunita Sharma, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: K.K. Mani, C.K.R. Lenin Sekar and Mayur R. Shah, Advs.
Subject: Contract
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 45, 47 and 73; Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Sections 35, 37 and 54; Indian Stamp Rules, 1925
Cases Referred:
State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram; Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka; Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1980 (1) SCC 704; Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank and Ors.; O. Bharathan v. K. Sudhakaran
Prior History:
From the Judgment and Order dated 17/2/1999 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in S.A. No. 696/1987
Disposition:
Appeal dismissed
Citing Reference:
* Mentioned
*** Discussed
State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram ***
Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka ***
Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh ***
Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank and Ors. ***
O. Bharathan v. K. Sudhakaran *
Case Note:
Civil - Specific performance - Validity of - Stamp paper - Opinion of experts - Section 54 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Indian Stamp Rules, 1925 - Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Plaintiff-Appellant alleged that the First Defendant agreed to sell suit property by an agreement and received some amount as advance - Plaintiff issued a notice to execute the sale deed and receive the balance amount - Defendant denied the agreement and executed the sale deed in favour of Second Defendant - Plaintiff
Posted on 14 April 2008 by Prakash Yedhula | CourtSupreme Court of IndiaBriefNo impediment for a stamp paper purchased more than six months prior to the proposed date of execution, being used for a documentCitationJudgementIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 290 of 2001
Decided On: 19.02.2008
Appellants: Thiruvengada Pillai
Vs.
Respondent: Navaneethammal and Anr.
Hon'ble Judges:
R.V. Raveendran and P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Sunita Sharma, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: K.K. Mani, C.K.R. Lenin Sekar and Mayur R. Shah, Advs.
Subject: Contract
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 45, 47 and 73; Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Sections 35, 37 and 54; Indian Stamp Rules, 1925
Cases Referred:
State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram; Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka; Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1980 (1) SCC 704; Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank and Ors.; O. Bharathan v. K. Sudhakaran
Prior History:
From the Judgment and Order dated 17/2/1999 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in S.A. No. 696/1987
Disposition:
Appeal dismissed
Citing Reference:
* Mentioned
*** Discussed
State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram ***
Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka ***
Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh ***
Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank and Ors. ***
O. Bharathan v. K. Sudhakaran *
Case Note:
Civil - Specific performance - Validity of - Stamp paper - Opinion of experts - Section 54 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Indian Stamp Rules, 1925 - Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Plaintiff-Appellant alleged that the First Defendant agreed to sell suit property by an agreement and received some amount as advance - Plaintiff issued a notice to execute the sale deed and receive the balance amount - Defendant denied the agreement and executed the sale deed in favour of Second Defendant - Plaintiff