REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

VIJAY Appellant

V/S

UNION OF INDIA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

G.T. GIRISH VS. Y. SUBBA RAJU [REFERRED TO]
JUPUDI KESAVA RAO VS. PUL WARTHI VENKATA SUBBARAO [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND DAS VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
CEMENT CORPN OF INDIA VS. PURYA [REFERRED TO]
VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI [REFERRED TO]
J YASHODA VS. K SHOBHA RANI [REFERRED TO]
HARIOM AGRAWAL VS. PRAKASH CHAND MALVIYA [REFERRED TO]
M CHANDRA VS. M THANGAMUTHU [REFERRED TO]
H SIDDIQUI VS. A RAMALINGAM [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ LAMP AND INDUSTRIES PVT LTD VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. VATIKA TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
GHANSHYAM SARDA VS. SASHIKANT JHA, DIRECTOR, M/S JK JUTE MILLS CO. LTD. & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
NEERAJ DUTTA VS. STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issues that arise for consideration of this Court in the present appeal are:

(2.) Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an agreement to sell on 4/2/1998, and pursuant to that, Plaintiff was allegedly put in possession by Defendant. When Defendant denied the existence of such an agreement, Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract. In the said suit, Plaintiff moved an application to file a copy of the agreement to sell, among other documents, as secondary evidence.

(3.) Initially, the said application was allowed by the 4th Additional District Judge vide order dtd. 17/7/2001. But when Defendant sought review of this order, the Court vide its order dtd. 16/12/2003 reviewed it and held that secondary evidence of an agreement to sell could not be allowed as it was not executed on a proper stamp, thus barred under sec. 35 of the Stamp Act. While holding so, it relied on the decision of this Court in Jupadi Kesava Rao (supra).

Click here to view full judgment.

VIJAY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address