In the instant matter, the Calcutta High Court dismissed an application for addition of the applicant as a party in a writ petition challenging the assessment of stamp duty.
The case relates as to how the statutory mandate under Section 11(13) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which aims at expeditious disposal of petitions under Section 11 of the Act, is harmonized with the obligation imposed vide the judgment N.N. Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd, (2023) 7 SCC 1, to act in tune with the statutory dictate of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 8, 11 and 7: Non-payment or deficient payment of stamp duty on substantive contract comprising/containing
“In certain situations, it may be expedient to leave it to the arbitrator to determine the issue as to whether stamping is insufficient, and if so, the arbitrator will take recourse to Section 33 of the Stamp Act, 1889.”
If adjudication of any stamp duty payable involves any complexity/ extraordinary circumstances, the adjudication of stamp duty can be extended for a maximum period of three months from the date of application.
“Stamp Act in its application to Uttar Pradesh has been amended by the UP (Stamp Amendment Act 1952) and Article 23 of Schedule IB as applicable to UP.”
The practice of dissent in judicial decision-making process plays a critical role in revealing constitutional commitment to deliberative democracy. Allowing judges to express differing views and engage in a dialogue about the law and its interpretation can potentially lead to a more nuanced and refined understanding of the law, as the Court grapples with competing interpretations and seeks to reconcile them in a principled manner.
The Five-Judge Bench of Supreme Court in 3:2 majority approved paragraphs 22 and 29 of Garware Wall Ropes case, and to this extent, also approved Vidya Drolia case.
Bombay High Court quashed two of State Government’s circulars, limited the stamp duty only to additional area purchased during redevelopment, and laid several pointers which shall apply further beyond the facts of the present matter.
Supreme Court: While reversing the impugned decision of the Bombay High Court, M.R. Shah* and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., held that the prices
Supreme Court: While dealing with a case under the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958, the bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ has held that
National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai: The Coram of H.V. Subba Rao, Judicial Member addressed the relevancy of insufficiency of stamp duty under
by Swarnendu Chatterjee† and Simran Bais††
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of G.S. Patel and Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ., considered petitions which raised questions about the interpretation
On October 05, 2021, the State Government of Karnataka has issued the Karnataka Stamp (Amendment) Act, 2021 to further amend the Karnataka
by Shuchi Sejwar* and Akshata Sharma**
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, J., decides a matter covering various aspects of the arbitration agreement. Instant petition under Section 11 of
Supreme Court: The three-judge bench comprising DY Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee and Indu Malhotra, JJ. has observed that non-payment of stamp duty in
by Dormaan Dalal*
Allahabad High Court: Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J., addressed a matter with regard to stamp duty. Respondents invited a tender to repair