Supreme Court: SC/ST Act Does Not Apply to Alleged Casteist Abuse Inside a Private House || Supreme Court: Frictionless Relationship Between the Bar and the Bench Strengthens Justice Delivery || Delhi High Court: Eviction From Jhuggis With Rehabilitation Does Not Violate Article 21 || Madras HC: Courts Cannot Remain Silent When Single Disputed Vote Could Determine Government’s Fate || Allahabad HC Blamed State and Police For Delays and Ordered Reforms to Tackle “Tarikh Pe Tarikh” || Supreme Court: Banks Cannot Invoke IBC Against Debtors For Builder-Linked Loans || Supreme Court: Non-Disclosure of Failed Candidates’ Marks Does Not Imply They Passed Exams || Supreme Court: Murder Accused Cannot Inherit Property of the Person Allegedly Killed || Supreme Court: Delay in Deposit Does Not Automatically Cancel Contracts under Specific Relief Act || SC: Railways is Treated as a Consumer under the Electricity Act, Not a Distribution Licensee

Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. Costal Gujarat Power Ltd. and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (11 Aug 2015)

Number of transactions, not number of documents for stamp duty

MANU/SC/0851/2015

Civil

In a case where the mortgagor borrowed from 13 banks in one instrument, the agreement fell under Section 5 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958, the Court held. Though there was one instrument chronicling the transactions, the borrower had entered into 13 distinct loan agreements.

Relevant : Section 5 Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 Act The Member, Board of Revenue v. Arthur Paul Benthall MANU/SC/0002/1955

Tags : STAMP DUTY NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS ONE INSTRUMENT

Share :