Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay Stamp Act, 1958

13 judgments · newest first · showing 1–13

ARUN RAMKISAN SIKCHI AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners executed a power of attorney (POA) whereby the husband authorized his wife to develop, sell, and otherwise deal with his undivided share of a property, and the POA was registered after payment of stamp duty under Section 48 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. The Stamp and Registration …

ANIL RAMKISAN SIKCHI AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA OTHERS

DISPOSED OFF

The petitioners, a husband and wife, executed a power of attorney (POA) whereby the husband authorized his wife to manage, develop, and sell his undivided share of property. The POA was registered and stamp duty was paid under Section 48 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. The revenue authorities later …

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, MUMBAIversusM/S. MOHAN GANDHI AND COMPANY, MADRAS

Allowed

The case involved Punjab National Bank (PNB) and M/s. Mohan Gandhi & Co., a partnership firm, concerning an agreement dated 5 July 1982 for the sale of a flat in Cuffe Parade. The firm claimed the document was a security arrangement for a loan taken by Argee Textiles, alleging that minors in the …

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, MUMBAIversusM/S. MOHAN GANDHI AND COMPANY

Allowed

The Bombay High Court heard two appeals filed by Punjab National Bank (PNB) against M/s. Mohan Gandhi & Company challenging a common judgment that dismissed PNB’s suit for specific performance and upheld Mohan Gandhi’s suit seeking a declaration that the 5 July 1982 agreement was a security, not a …

SHANTILAL DAGDULAL NAVLAKHAversusANIL BANDOPANT CHILLAL AND ANR

Disposed Off

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging a July 2005 order of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, which had impounded a 1994 lease deed and directed payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty. The petitioner argued that the trial court had no jurisdiction to …

RAMESH MISHRIMAL JAINversusAVINASH VISHWANATH PATNE & ANR.

2025 INSC 213Dismissed

The appellant, Ramesh Mishrimal Jain, entered into an agreement to sell dated 03‑09‑2003 with the mother of respondent No.1 concerning a house in Khed. The agreement stipulated that the appellant was already in possession of the property as a tenant and that ownership possession would transfer only …

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.versusNATIONAL ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.

2024 INSC 270Dismissed

National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. increased its authorized share capital from Rs.600 crores to Rs.1,200 crores and paid Rs.25 lakh stamp duty on the Form No.5 notice filed under Section 97 of the Companies Act, 1956. The company later sought a refund, arguing that the Articles of …

HINDUSTAN LEVER AND ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

2003 INSC 644Dismissed

Hindustan Lever Ltd. challenged the levy of stamp duty by the State of Maharashtra on the High Court order sanctioning its amalgamation with Tata Oil Mills Ltd. The appellants argued that the order was a judicial decree, not an "instrument" under the Bombay Stamp Act, and that the State lacked …

HANUMAN VITAMIN FOODS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

2000 INSC 344Dismissed

The appellants, members of a co‑operative society, transferred five shares to other members via an instrument dated 31 March 1986. The Superintendent of Stamps treated the instrument as a conveyance of property and demanded stamp duty under Article 25(b)(i) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. The Bombay …

VEENA HASMUKH JAIN AND ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

1999 INSC 28Dismissed

The appellants entered into an agreement for sale of a flat under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, paid the required registration fee and later had the agreement impounded with a demand for stamp duty under Section 32A of the Bombay Stamp Act. They contended that the document was …

SHANKAR BALWANT LOKHANDEversusCHANDRAKANT SHANKER LOKHANDE

1995 INSC 187Appeal(s) allowed

The parties obtained a preliminary decree in a partition suit allocating a 1/6th share to the first respondent and a 5/6th share to the appellants. Although the court directed the preparation of a final decree in 1958, the final decree could not be engrossed because the appellants failed to supply …