<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1968 (6) TMI 66 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301856</link>
    <description>Section 19 of the Indian Stamp Act was held inapplicable because the promissory notes, though executed and endorsed outside India, were not first presented, endorsed, transferred, or otherwise negotiated in India; the mere filing of a suit on them did not trigger further stamping. The objection based on insufficient stamping therefore failed. The classification of the instruments as inland or foreign under the Negotiable Instruments Act was also held not to determine the applicability of the Singapore Money-lenders Act, which required separate consideration. The appellate order was upheld, the appeals were dismissed, and the Money-lenders Act issue was left open for fresh trial-level consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2022 10:48:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=676957" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (6) TMI 66 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301856</link>
      <description>Section 19 of the Indian Stamp Act was held inapplicable because the promissory notes, though executed and endorsed outside India, were not first presented, endorsed, transferred, or otherwise negotiated in India; the mere filing of a suit on them did not trigger further stamping. The objection based on insufficient stamping therefore failed. The classification of the instruments as inland or foreign under the Negotiable Instruments Act was also held not to determine the applicability of the Singapore Money-lenders Act, which required separate consideration. The appellate order was upheld, the appeals were dismissed, and the Money-lenders Act issue was left open for fresh trial-level consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301856</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>