Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe || Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments || Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them || SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances || Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy || Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services || Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required || Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case || Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection || MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations

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 :