Home Maxims & Terms Insufficiently stamped meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Insufficiently stamped

Insufficiently stamped legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2014 SCMR 1562 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
S. 4Stamp Act (II of 1899), Ss. 35 & 36Promissory noteInsufficiently stampedNeither invalid nor voidAdmissibility in evidence of an insufficiently stamped promissory noteScope

Insufficiently stamped Promissory Note was neither invalid nor a void instrument, but it was only subject to disabilities mentioned in S. 35 of the Stamp Act, 1881

Deficiently stamped pro note was not admissible in evidence nor it could be acted upon unless duly stamped

However in terms of S. 36 of Stamp Act, 1881 if a deficiently stamped instrument was once admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, it was not permissible for the Court of first instance, or in appeal or in revision to exclude such instrument from its consideration

Provisions of S. 36 of Stamp Act, 1881 were mandatory in nature and had overriding effect on S. 35 of the said Act imposing a complete bar to question the admissibility of a Promissory Note once it had been admitted and exhibited in evidence without any objection from the other side and included all such instruments which fell under proviso (a) to S.35 of the Stamp Act, 1881.

2014 CLD 1378 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
S. 4Stamp Act (II of 1899), Ss. 35 & 36Promissory noteInsufficiently stampedNeither invalid nor voidAdmissibility in evidence of an insufficiently stamped promissory noteScope

Insufficiently stamped Promissory Note was neither invalid nor a void instrument, but it was only subject to disabilities mentioned in S. 35 of the Stamp Act, 1881

Deficiently stamped pro note was not admissible in evidence nor it could be acted upon unless duly stamped

However in terms of S. 36 of Stamp Act, 1881 if a deficiently stamped instrument was once admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, it was not permissible for the Court of first instance, or in appeal or in revision to exclude such instrument from its consideration

Provisions of S. 36 of Stamp Act, 1881 were mandatory in nature and had overriding effect on S. 35 of the said Act imposing a complete bar to question the admissibility of a Promissory Note once it had been admitted and exhibited in evidence without any objection from the other side and included all such instruments which fell under proviso (a) to S.35 of the Stamp Act, 1881.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Insufficiently stamped", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124946765

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Insufficiently stamped"

CLD 2014
2014-May-14

2014 C L D 1378

Sheikh MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL — Appellant Versus Sheikh Hafiz MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Respondent

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
SCMR 2014
Civil Appeal No.1428 of 2007, decided on 14th May, 2014.

2014 S C M R 1562

Sheikh MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL — Appellant Versus Sheikh Hafiz MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Respondent

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PLD 1982
Writ Petition No. 2320 of‑1978, decided on 11th February, 1981.

P L D 1982 Lahore 305

Master GHULAM RASUL‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE AND ANOTHER Respondents

Court:
PLD 1981
Writ Petition No. 2320 of 1986, decided on 11th February, 1981.

P L D 1981 Lahore 286

Master GHULAM RASUL‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE AND ANOTHER — Respondents

Court: 5. 12‑Court‑fee‑Court trying suit or hearing an appeal has jurisdiction to determine amount of fee chargeable on plaint or memo randum of appeal‑Objection with regard to insufficiency of court fee‑To be taken up at earliest possible moment‑Plaint or appeal' admitted to regular hearing in spite of deficiency in payment of court-fee‑Not to be. dismissed in haste.‑Plaint‑Appeal (civil).
PLD 1984
Civil Revision No. 99 of 1973, decided on 3rd September, 1983.

P L D 1984 Peshawar 2

Mian SHER REHMAN‑Petitioner. Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents

Court:
PLD 2011
2010-October-27

P L D 2011 Lahore 149

MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and another — Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and another — Respondents

Court: High Court
CLC 1994
R.FA. No. 5 of 1992/BWP, decided on 24th April, 1993.

1994 C L C 1465

MUHAMMAD AFZAL‑‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑‑Respondent

Court: Lahore
PLD 1966
Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1965, decided on 26th February 1966.

P L D 1966 Azad J & K 51

SOHBAT ALI AND OTHERS‑Appellants Versus FAQAR DIN‑Respondent

Court:
CLC 1983
Regular Second Appeal No. 80 of 1981, decided on14th November, 1981.

1983 C L C 109

Malik MUHAMMAD WARYAM‑Appellant Versus Mst. SHAHNAZ MASOOD‑Respondent

Court: Lahore
PLD 1970
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 94 of 1969, decided on 30th October 1969.

P L D 1970 Supreme Court 37

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN AND ANOTHER‑ — Petitioners Versus MAKHDOOM SYED GHULAM MUJTABA SHAH AND ANOTHER‑ — Respondents

Court: