Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD)
Stamp Act [II of 1899] | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Sections 2(2), 18 & 35 |
Stamping instruments executed outside Bangladesh—When the SCC Judge examined the power of attorney ordered refiling on validation it will be deemed to have cured the defect of absence of Bangladesh stamps on the power of attorney and also the breach of time limit for stamp. The holder of the power of attorney must pay the prescribed penalty otherwise the power of attorney will be inadmissible in evidence. Anath Bandhu Guha & Sons Ltd vs Babu SS Halder 42 DLR (AD) 244. |
Anath Bandhu Guha & Sons Ltd vs Babu SS Halder | 42 DLR (AD) 244 |
Section 2(17) |
Definition of mortgage deed occurring in section 2(17) of Stamp Act, 1899. BHBFC vs A Mannan 41 DLR (AD) 143. |
BHBFC vs A Mannan | 41 DLR (AD) 143 |
Sections 2(9), 27, 31, 32, 48 and 70 |
The Stamp Act, 1899
|
Saifuzzaman Chowdhury(Md.) =VS= Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs | 14 LM (AD) 375 |
Section 12 |
Cancellation of a stamp is a question of fact. Object of cancellation is to
prevent its use over again.
|
Jabed Ali Vs. Dr. Sultan Ahmed | 27 DLR (SC) 78 |
Section 13 |
Cancellation of a stamp is a question of fact. Object of cancellation is to
prevent its use over again.
|
Jabed Ali Vs. Dr. Sultan Ahmed | 27 DLR (SC) 78 |
Section 18 |
The very act of revalidating or re-stamping the power of attorney is defendant upon reciprocal arrangement. [Para-6] Molay Behari Biswas Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh 5 BLT (AD)-109 |
Molay Behari Biswas Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh | 5 BLT (AD) 109 |
Section 18 |
“Proper Officer”—Under sub-rule(2) of Rule 12 of the Stamp Rules read with section 18 of the Stamp Act, it is the dut of the “Proper Officer’ as defined in Rule 9 of the Stamp Rules to stamp the instrument in the manner as described by Rule II of the said Rules. “Proper Officer” within the meaning of Rule 9 are specified in the Appendix—A to the Rules. Messers Anath Bandhu Guha and Soits Ltd. through its attrorney Md. Sirqjul Huq Vs- Babu Sudhangshu She khar Halder, 11 BLD (AD) 66 |
Messers Anath Bandhu Guha and Soits Ltd. through its attrorney Md. Sirqjul Huq Vs- Babu Sudhangshu She khar Halder, | 11 BLD (AD) 66 |
Section 35 and Art. 45 |
In the instant case the final decree was passed on 30.11.54 but the decree was drawn and signed on 22.5.65. The decree could not be drawn and signed earlier as the required stamp- paper was not put in. A decree in a partition suit is an instrument of partition which is chargeable with stamp duty under Article 45 of the Stamp Act. 1899, and unless it is duly stamped the decree is not a4missible in evidence as provided in section 35 of the Stamp Act. Aminullah Bhuiyan Vs. Abdul Hafiz (1981)33 DLR (AD) 282. |
Aminullah Bhuiyan Vs. Abdul Hafiz | 33 DLR (AD) 282 |
Section 35 |
A failure to comply with the stamp duty as provided under the Stamp Act may entail penalty but the instrument cannot be thrown away for want of stamp as inadmissible in evidence not being duly stamped. [Para-22] Abdul Karim & Ors. Vs. Md Serajuddin Ahmed & Ors 7 BLT (AD)-160. |
Abdul Karim & Ors. Vs. Md Serajuddin Ahmed & Ors | 7 BLT (AD) 160 |
Art.40(b) |
Respondent mortgaged his properties, as a security for obtaining loan to the Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha—But so far as the Bank of CC International is concerned it is a first security for which stamp-duty under clause (b) of the Act is chargeable. Chairman National Board of Revenue Vs. GMG Corpn. (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 263. |
Chairman National Board of Revenue Vs. GMG Corpn. | 35 DLR (AD) 263 |
Art. 40 (c) |
Mortgage-deed is a security in addition to the securities already furnished, in favour of the same lender and in respect of the same loan. Chairman, National Board of Revenue, Bangladesh Vs. M/s. GMG Corporation Ltd. (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 262. |
Chairman, National Board of Revenue, Bangladesh Vs. M/s. GMG Corporation Ltd. | 35 DLR (AD) 262 |
Article 45 |
—In the instant case the final decree was passed on 30.11.54 but the decree was drawn and signed on 22.5.65. The decree could not be drawn and signed earlier as the required stamp paper was not put in. A decree in a partition Suit 1S an instrument of partition which is chargeable with stamp duty under Article 45 of the Stamp Act, 1898, and unless it is duly stamped the decree is not admissible if evidence as provided in section 35 of the Stamp Act. Aminullah Bhuiyan Vs Abdul Hajiz (1981) 33 DLR (AD) 282. |
Aminullah Bhuiyan Vs Abdul Hajiz | 33 DLR (AD) 282 |