Calcutta HC: Award May Be Set Aside if Tribunal Rewrites Contract or Ignores Key Clauses || Delhi HC Suspends Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s Life Term, Holding Section 5(C) of POCSO Not Made Out || Calcutta High Court: Arbitration Clause in an Expired Lease Cannot be Invoked For a Fresh Lease || Delhi High Court: 120-Day Timeline under Section 132B Of Income Tax Act is Not Mandatory || NCLAT Reaffirms That Borrower's Debt Acknowledgment Also Extends Limitation Period for Guarantors || NCLAT: Oppression & Mismanagement Petition Cannot Be Filed Without Company Membership on Filing Date || Supreme Court Quashes Rajasthan Village Renaming, Says Government Must Follow its Own Policy || NCLAT: NCLT Can Order Forensic Audit on its Own, No Separate Application Required || NCLAT Reiterates That IBC Cannot be Invoked as a Recovery Tool for Contractual Disputes || Delhi HC: DRI or Central Revenues Control Lab Presence in Delhi Alone Does Not Confer Jurisdiction

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 :