Add to favourtiesIf the stamp is not cancelled at the time when it is affixed, the instrument will be deemed to be not duly stamped and is inadmissible in evidence.
Rajammal v. Sengava Naicker, 92 L. W. Page 384
My Bookmarks
- Your favorites will be here.
Category Wise Search
Headnote Search
Most Read
- Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd., 1997 PLRonline 0008
- Authorized Officer, State Bank Of Travancore v. Mathew K.C., 2018 PLRonline 1106
- COI Art. 227 – Revision – Scope of interference is limited.
- Prevention of Corruption Act, S. 2(c) – “public servant”, the definition is extremely wide.
- HARGURPRATAP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB – 2007 SCeJ 003
- KAMAL KUMAR V. PREMLATA JOSHI, 2019 SCeJ 60
- If any Central Statute creates priority of a charge in favour of a secured creditor, the same will rank above the charge in favour of a State for a tax due under the Value Added Tax of the State .
- Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana – 2021 SCeJ 900
- N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn. , 1996 PLRonline 0002
- (2021-4)204 PLR 640
