9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (6) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent 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-lenders Act would apply and therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded 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 as endorsed outside India, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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 had been executed out of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instruments. But whether, because of the Singapore Money-lenders Act, the suits can be maintained or not is a different point which has got to be decided upon different considerations. That question may be gone into by the trial Court without reference to what the lower appellate Court has decided in this case. 5. With these observations, the two appeals are dismissed. No costs. - - Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
