Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Indian Stamp Act

6 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

SITA RAM BHAMAversusRAMVATAR BHAMA

2018 INSC 26023 March 2018Case Partly allowed

The father of the parties, a self‑acquired owner of a house and a shop, decided to divide his property on 25‑Oct‑1992 but died on 10‑Sep‑1993. The surviving brothers recorded a memorandum of settlement on 9‑Sep‑1994, signed by their mother and sisters, allocating the entire property between them. The plaintiff sued for

DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. AND ANR.versusDIRECTOR, T & C. PLANNING HARYANA AND ORS.

2010 INSC 79319 November 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, DLF Universal Ltd. and another, were licensed under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 to develop residential colonies and entered into private agreements with plot and flat buyers that included clauses for extension fees and maintenance charges. The Director, Town and Count

BAR COUNCIL OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusB. NARAYAN SWAMY & ANR.

2014 INSC 100415 September 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh disciplined advocate B. Narayan Swamy for attesting blank stamp papers in his capacity as a Notary, finding him in violation of the Notaries Act and Section 35 of the Advocates Act. The State Bar Council imposed a lifetime debarment, which the Bar Council of India stayed and set aside,

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE ANDversusAKHALAQ HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER

2020 INSC 2563 March 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents Akhlaq Hussain and Saqir Hussain exchanged a small parcel of land for a larger agricultural parcel owned by Mangal Singh, a member of a Scheduled Tribe, through a registered deed. The Assistant Collector declared the exchange void under Sections 157‑B and 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Ref

STATE BANK OF HYDERABADversusRABO BANK

2015 INSC 7241 October 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, RABO Bank, sued State Bank of Hyderabad (SBH) in a summary suit under Order 37 of the CPC, claiming payment on several Bills of Exchange that SBH had allegedly accepted via telex/fax messages. SBH denied liability, asserting that the co‑acceptances were unauthorized, that the Bills lacked proper signatur

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search