REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

JAGESHAR NAIK Appellant

V/S

COLLECTOR OF JAUNPUR Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MIRZA FARIDUN BEG V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF PESHAWAR V. MOHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM LAL BIDHI CHAND FIRM V. MUKUND LAL [REFERRED TO]
EMPEROR V. GIAN CHAND [REFERRED TO]
V E A ANNAMALAI CHETTIAR VS. S V V S VEERAPPA CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
JAVER CHAND VS. PUKHRAJ SURANA [REFERRED TO]
MILKHIRAM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. CHAMANLAL BROS [REFERRED TO]
BITTAN BIBI VS. KUNTU LAL [REFERRED TO]
BOARD OF REVENUE VS. PADUM BAHADUR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAM ABHILAKH VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHAND VS. MOTI THAD [REFERRED TO]
THAKUR HAR BUX SINGH VS. SATISH CHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
LAL KAMESHWARI SINGH VS. SARJU SINGH [REFERRED TO]
M K LODHI VS. ZIA-UL HAQ [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A report made by the Chief Inspector of Stamps in this First Appeal has been referred to a larger Bench by a Division Bench, which was or the opinion that the decision of this Court in Ramohand v. Moti Thad, 1982 All LJ 485: (AIR 1962 All requires reconsideration.

(2.) THE report is about the stamp duty payable on a document executed by Rani Dhandevi Kunwar (now represented by the Collector, Jaunpur, the respondent) on one side and Jageshar Naik appellant on the other side. It is styled as an agreement and is stamped as such i.e., stamp duty of Re. 1-00 has been paid on it. The gist of the agreement is as follows:

(3.) THE document was relied upon by both the parties to suit No. 91 of 1951, from which this appeal arises. The plaintiff-respondent, filed the original document and the defendant-appellant Jageshar Naik filed a duplicate of it. The genuineness of both the documents was admitted and both were admitted in evidence and exhibited. The endorsement of the original was:

Click here to view full judgment.

JAGESHAR NAIK Vs. COLLECTOR OF JAUNPUR

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address