Deficient stamp
Deficient stamp legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Pro note is liable to be stamped under Art.49 of Stamp Act, 1899 and by virtue of amendment made by Punjab Finance Act, 1995, stamp of an amount of Rs.100 is payable if amount exceeds Rs.500,000
Provision of proviso (a) to S.35 of Stamp Act, 1899, is curative and covers situation according to which if any instrument is not stamped or insufficiently stamped would be admitted in evidence on payment of penalty
Payment of stamp duty is a matter between a citizen and the State and an adversary cannot be permitted to capitalize on a technicality which otherwise is not fatal to suit.
"Deficient stamp", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124938256
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Deficient stamp"
1983 C L C 662
MUHAMMAD AKRAM-Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND OTHERS-Respondents
Court: Azad J & KP L D 2005 Lahore 732
Chaudhry KHALID MAHMOOD — Appellant Versus Chaudhry SAID MU14AMMAD — Respondent
Court:2005 C L D 1864
Chaudhry KHALID MAHMOOD — Appellant Versus Chaudhry SAID MUHAMMAD — Respondent
Court: Lahore1979 S C M R 46
ABDUL AZIZ‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL SATTAR‑Respondent
Court: ‑‑‑ S. 5‑Condonation of delay‑Delay in making up deficiency in court‑fee sought to be condoned on ground of counsel having received full court‑fee from client but his clerk having affixed less court‑fee Held : Delay for each day to be explained in cases of condonation‑Appeal having been returned to counsel for being deficiently stamped and counsel having already received full amount of court‑fee, appeal could be refiled on very date of return and no occasion arose for writing to client and waiting for 3 days‑High Court in circumstances committed no legal or factual error in refusing to extend period of limitation.‑Court‑fee ‑Condonation of delay.2003 M L D 140
WALID‑BIN‑NAWAZ and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus Malik MUHAMMAD AKRAM and others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: LahoreP L D 2003 Karachi 686
PAKISTAN PAPERSACK CORPORATION LTD. ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus BOARD OF REVENUE, SINDH and others‑‑‑Respondents
Court:1992 M L D 1657
ABDUL QAYYUM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Lahore1995SCMR53
ADIL KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2018 C L C 805
Mir JAWAZ KHAN and 2 others — Petitioners Versus GUL BATH KHAN and 2 others — Respondents
Court: Peshawar1984 C L C 2138
SHER MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS‑ — Petitioners Versus SHAFQAT ULLAH‑ — Respondent
Court: Lahore