Skip to content


Mothoora Mohun Roy Vs. Peary Mohun Shaw - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1879)ILR4Cal259
AppellantMothoora Mohun Roy
RespondentPeary Mohun Shaw
Excerpt:
hundi - insufficient stamp--evidence--penalty--stamp act (xviii of 1869), sections 5, 8 and 19. practice--amendment of plaint at hearing. - pontifex, j.1. section 8 does not refer to such instruments only. these bills are not admissible upon another ground. if you contend that section 28 applies only to instruments chargeable with one anna, then, section 5 shows that you cannot use an adhesive stamp at all. again, section 19 seems to show that section 20 does not apply to bills of exchange at all. it could not have been intended that s.20 should alter s.19. i must admit the objection as to these hundis as they are insufficiently stamped.
Judgment:

Pontifex, J.

1. Section 8 does not refer to such instruments only. These bills are not admissible upon another ground. If you contend that Section 28 applies only to instruments chargeable with one anna, then, Section 5 shows that you cannot use an adhesive stamp at all. Again, Section 19 seems to show that Section 20 does not apply to bills of exchange at all. It could not have been intended that s.20 should alter s.19. I must admit the objection as to these hundis as they are insufficiently stamped.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //