TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1968 (6) TMI 66
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts were endorsed in favour of the respondent in these two cases in Singapore. On suits being filed in India on the basis of these two promissory notes, the defendants contended that the suit promissory notes had not been properly stamped as required by Section 19 of the Indian Stamp Act. They also contended they were foreign instruments and, having been executed in Singapore, the Singapore Money-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tamp and cancel the same; Provided that.... 3. In this case, the suits were filed on the basis of the promissory notes. They have not been presented for acceptance or payment. Nor have they been endorsed or transferred or otherwise negotiated in India. There is, therefore, no need for affixing proper stamp and cancelling the same. That, when a suit is filed on a promissory note executed as well a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ped again when it is brought into India and submitted to any of the processes referred to under Section 19 of the Stamp Act does not really arise in this case. There is the decision of this Court in Lobo v. Narajal Dogg AIR 1953 Mad 424, which seem; to take the view that it would be necessary in such a case to affix stamps again afresh even if it had been affixed under the Indian Stamp Act when it....