Dismissed

Shailesh H. Bajaj v. Creative Outerwear Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Jan 2013NMS/2527/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a notice of motion to recall an order mandating payment of stamp duty for unstamped documents, the High Court of Bombay rejected the request. The Court held that the order regarding payment of the Rs. 10,000 to the Legal Services Authority and the direction to stamp duplicate agreements remain in force. The annexures were directed to be marked only after the primary documents are sufficiently s

What did the court decide?

The Notice of Motion was disposed of; the order for payment of stamp duty and costs was not recalled; annexures to be marked after documents are stamped.

Shailesh H. Bajaj Vs Creative Outerwear Ltd… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

NMS No.2527_2012

jsn

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2527 OF 2012

¶6

¶7

SUIT NO.1673 OF 1998

¶8

Shailesh Harinarayan Bajaj – Plaintiff

¶9

V/s.

¶10

Creative Garments P. Ltd. & Anr. -- Defendants

¶11

Ms. Sonal, Adv. i/b. Ravi Goenkar for Plaintiff. Mr. G.B. Kedia, Adv. for Defendant No.1.

¶12

CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATE : 14th January, 2013.

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

The Notice of Motion is for recalling the order of this court dated 8^th October, 2012. The Plaintiff claims that the defendants must pay stamp duty upon the documents which are unstamped or insufficiently stamped as per the agreement between the parties. The agreement is oral. It cannot be proved in the Notice of Motion. The Plaintiff relied upon the documents. He must make the documents admissible in evidence. Documents will become admissible in evidence if they are sufficiently and adequately stamped. Hence the Plaintiff must pay the stamp duty or the excess stamp duty, if the documents are not stamped or insufficiently stamped. Paragraph 1 of the order dated 8^th October, 2012 cannot be recalled and is not recalled.

¶15

The Plaintiff has been directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000/to the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority. Costs are not paid. The Plaintiff requires recall of that order. The reason for the payment of

¶16

¶17

NMS No.2527_2012

¶18

costs as is set out in paragraph 3 of the order. The reason cannot be recalled. Hence the order of costs is not recalled.

¶19

The Plaintiff has also applied for marking the annexures to the unstamped documents. The unstamped documents are Nos.1,3,5,7,8 and 10. The annexures are documents are Nos.2,3,4,6 etc. Documents cannot be marked separately as demanded by the Plaintiff. All the documents shall be marked when their admissibility shall be considered when they are all shown to the Court and are considered by the Court one by one. Hence the annexures to document 1,3,5,7,8 or 10 are not marked now. They shall be marked after document Nos.1,3,5,7,8 and 10 are sufficiently stamped even if they are separate documents.

¶20

Document Nos.1,3,5,7,8 and 10 which are required to be stamped are executed in duplicate. The original is stated to be with defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 does not admit this aspect. The duplicate is with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff shall be entitled to stamp the duplicate agreement. The stamp authority shall allow the duplicate agreements to be stamped in accordance with its adjudication relating to the stamps. The other aspects relating to the custody of the documents shall be considered in the trial.

¶21

Affidavit of evidence of the Plaintiff is now sought to be filed. It is accepted on record under provisions of Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC. A copy is given to the counsel on behalf of the defendants. The affidavit shall be considered whilst considering the admissibility of the documents of the Plaintiff's at one time. There shall be no other order in the Notice of Motion. Notice of Motion is disposed off accordingly.

¶22

( ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Shailesh H. Bajaj v. Creative Outerwear Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailesh H. Bajaj v. Creative Outerwear Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. K. N. Krishnamurthy Vs Mrs. Kavita Krishnamurthy

Rhea Manish Jadhwani Vs Manish Gopal Jadhwani and Anr.

Pinky Dhiren Patel Vs Dhiren Thakor Patel

Abha Ashish Dandekar Vs Ashish Subhash Dandekar and 2 Ors.

Supriya Sandesh Gole Vs Bharati Balue Gole

Kanhiyalal Ramdas Galani @ Kanhiya K. Galani Vs Vijaykumar R. Galani @ Vijaykumar Galani and Anr.