Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Insurer's investment gains and investment write-downs face Section 263 revision; enquiry upheld, Rule 5(b)(ii) lapse sustained, late corrigendum quash...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7241 to 7260 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The dominant issue was whether a single mortgage deed securing repayment under multiple loan agreements attracted stamp duty under Section 4 (one transaction) or Section 5 (several distinct matters) of the Stamp Act. The court held Section 4 requires commonality of a single transaction, whereas Section 5 applies where distinct transactions are embodied in one instrument, requiring aggregate duty as if separate instruments existed. As the four loan agreements imposed separate obligations and constituted independent transactions, execution of one consolidated mortgage deed could not convert them into a common transaction; duty was correctly assessed separately for each loan, along with deficit consequences. The challenge to the revisional order was rejected and the petition was dismissed. - HC
The dominant issue was whether a single mortgage deed securing repayment under multiple loan agreements attracted stamp duty under Section 4 (one transaction) or Section 5 (several distinct matters) of the Stamp Act. The court held Section 4 requires commonality of a single transaction, whereas Section 5 applies where distinct transactions are embodied in one instrument, requiring aggregate duty as if separate instruments existed. As the four loan agreements imposed separate obligations and constituted independent transactions, execution of one consolidated mortgage deed could not convert them into a common transaction; duty was correctly assessed separately for each loan, along with deficit consequences. The challenge to the revisional order was rejected and the petition was dismissed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.