Photocopy Of An Agreement Is An Instrument

This is a very new deal that came before the Hon`ble SC by an SLP coming out of an order from Hon`ble Karnataka HC. In this regard, Hon`ble SC authorized the SLP, since the sub-heading was authorized by the HC, and erred in its findings, since sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act prohibit eligibility under stamped or insufficiently stamped documents. However, these documents can only be made admissible if the current stamp duty is paid with the sanction. The SS has certainly found, in allowing the SLP, that if the issue of insufficiently stamped instruments is stamped, they can only have probative value if the tax in force under the Act is paid at the same time as the penalty. Finally, it must be concluded. All of these documents, which are stamped or not stamped, can be validated by the payment of stamp duty and the penalty prescribed by law. It should also be noted that the Central Law and national stamp duty laws have duly provided for the provisions in it to allow an instrument that is not properly stamped. Judicial interpretation has also extended the same benefits to all instruments that are not stamped. Even these instruments can be validated by paying the tax and the prescribed penalty.

The applicant`s evidence was completed and, when the defendant`s cross-examination was completed, the above document, which purported to be a lease agreement, was tendered, which was rejected by the applicant. It was alleged that this document was a photocopy of the lease and that the original was on the applicant`s part. The notice of documenting was issued, but the applicant had disputed its existence. When the document was attempted, the complainant contradicted the same thing by denying the document and denying its existence. In addition, it was alleged, on behalf of the applicant, that the document had not been properly stamped and that it was not a recorded document. The Court of Small Cases accepted the objections raised on behalf of the applicant and rejected an application by the defendant for the issuance of that document. The petitioner then filed a written motion challenging the judgment and the decision of the district judge, the complaint of the original defendant and the plaintiff having been admitted in the same writing and the subject of an agreement relating to the lease agreement between the original recipient of the plaintiff and the recipient of the petition for the payment of the tax and the penalty required for the payment of the tax on the pills and the penalty required and by subsequently, he was ordered to have this document established as a guarantee.