Skip to content


Indian Stamp Act and Vs. Ibrahim Ishak - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in51Ind.Cas.221
AppellantIndian Stamp Act and ; A.M. Amolia
Respondentibrahim Ishak
Excerpt:
stamp act (ii of 1899), schedule i, article 35, clause (a), sub-clause (i) - lease of a shop--agreement to pay rent daily--stamp duty payable. - sanderson, c.j.1. in this case learned counsel has conceded, and i think rightly, that the tenancy was a monthly tenancy; and, consequently, it comes within article 35, clause (a), sub-clause (i) of the first schedule of the indian stamp act, that is to say, 'the lease purports to be for a term of less than one year.' therefore, the proper stamp duty is the same duty as for a bond which is referred to in article 15 and inasmuch as the amount is above rs. 50 and does not exceed rs. 100, the proper stamp duty is eight annas, as the learned judge has decided.woodroffe, j.2. i agree.
Judgment:

Sanderson, C.J.

1. In this case learned Counsel has conceded, and I think rightly, that the tenancy was a monthly tenancy; and, consequently, it comes within Article 35, Clause (a), Sub-clause (i) of the First Schedule of the Indian Stamp Act, that is to say, 'the lease purports to be for a term of less than one year.' Therefore, the proper stamp duty is the same duty as for a bond which is referred to in Article 15 and inasmuch as the amount is above Rs. 50 and does not exceed Rs. 100, the proper stamp duty is eight annas, as the learned Judge has decided.

Woodroffe, J.

2. I agree.


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