SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(AP) 1056

G.YETHIRAJULU
Peddyreddy Eswaramma – Appellant
Versus
Mallavarapu Chandra Reddy – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:C. Venkateswarlu, Advocate.
For the Respondent: ---

Judgment :

This revision petition arose against the order of the lower Court dated 22-08-2007 passed regarding the admissibility of the document dated 11-10-2004. The lower Court held that the said document comes within the definition of bond as defined under Section 2 (5) of Indian Stamp Act, therefore, directed the Office to collect stamp duty and penalty over the said document by treating it as a bond.

2. Being aggrieved by the order of the lower Court, the plaintiff preferred the present revision petition. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner Sri C.Venkateswarlu representing Sri C.Ramachandra Raju, submitted that the document referred in the impugned order is only an acknowledgement of receipt of the amount and it cannot be treated as a bond.

3. Section 2 (5) of the Act defines 'bond' which reads as follows:

"2 (5) Bond:- Bond includes,-

(a) any instrument whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another, on condition that the obligation shall be void if a specified act is performed, or is not performed, as the case may be:

(b) any instrument attested by a witness and not payable to order to bearer, whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another; an







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top