REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

A.P. Laly Appellant

V/S

Gurram Rama Rao Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

A. DEVASIKAMANI GOUNDAR V. M.A. ANDAMUTHU GOUNDAR [REFERRED TO]
B. BHAVANNARAYANA V. KOMMURU VULLAKKI CLOTH MERCHANT FIRM [REFERRED TO]
SITARAM V. THAKURDAS [REFERRED TO]
SUNKARI SRUJANA V. CHIKKALA BHAVANI SHANKAR [REFERRED TO]
VENKANNA V. PARASURAM [REFERRED TO]
VENKATRAMA AIYAR V. CHELLA PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
ALIMANE SAHIBA V. SUBBARAYUDU [REFERRED TO]
JAGESHAR NAIK V. COLLECTOR OF JAUNPUR [REFERRED TO]
VENKATA REDDI V. HUSSAIN SETTI [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]
P C PURUSHOTHAMA REDDIAR VS. S PERUMAL [REFERRED TO]
R V E VENKATACHALA GOUNDER VS. ARULMIGU VISWESARASWAMI AND V P TEMPLE [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMAL KUMAR ROY VS. SUSHIL KUMAR AGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHAND VS. MOTI THAD [REFERRED TO]
RAMA VARAPRASADA RICE MILL VS. TAKURDAS TOPANDAS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. T T KRISHNAMACHARI and CO VISAKHAPATNAM [REFERRED TO]
D JOGANNA VS. U CHAYADEVI [REFERRED TO]
ISRA FATIMA VS. BISMILLAH BEGUM [REFERRED TO]
VENKATESWARA IYER VS. RAMANATHA DHEEKSHITAR [REFERRED TO]
MIRZA SADIK HUSAIN KHAN VS. NAWAB SAIYED HASHIM ALI KHAN [REFERRED TO]
KUPPAMMAL VS. MU. VE. PETHANNA CHETTY [REFERRED TO]
SYED YOUSUF ALI VS. MOHD. YOUSUF [REFERRED TO]
SRINIVASA BUILDERS VS. A. JANGA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
S. MOHAN KRISHAN VS. V. VARALAKSHMAMMA [REFERRED TO]
EMPEROR VS. GIAN CHAND AND ORS [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. She filed O.S.No.6 of 2014 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Markapur for recovery of an amount of Rs. 18,92,000/- from the defendant. The suit was filed on the basis of a hand letter executed on 14.02.2011. The evidence of the parties was completed. During the course of evidence of PW.1, the said hand letter was marked as Ex.A1 and was treated as an agreement under Article 6(A) of Schedule I(A) of the Indian Stamp Act (for short 'the Act'). PW.1 was cross-examined. When the case was posted for arguments on defendant's side, the defendant filed I.A.No.490 of 2016 stating that the said document is not an agreement but it is a bond within the meaning of Section 2(5)(b) of the Act as laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in B. Bhavannarayana v. Kommuru Vullakki Cloth Merchant Firm 1996(1) ALT 917 (FB), and it is liable to be stamped under Article 13 of Schedule I(A) of the Act and not under Article 6(A) (iv) of Schedule I(A) of the Act. It was stated that it happened by inadvertence. Though the said document was marked as exhibit, it does not amount to admission and he has got a right to challenge the admissibility of the said document. Accordingly, he sought to de-exhibit the said document.

(3.) A counter was filed stating that the said application was filed only to drag on the matter. It is further stated that the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 1100/- towards stamp duty and penalty on the above said hand letter at the time of filing of the suit on 25.03.2014 and the same was endorsed on the back side of the hand letter.

Click here to view full judgment.

A.P. LALY Vs. GURRAM RAMA RAO

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address