Back
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
Sukhram Dewangan – Appellant
Versus
Rishi Agrawal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. whether the document is a bond or an agreement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented by both sides. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. legal definitions and essentials of a bond. (Para 8 , 9 , 11 , 14) |
| 4. distinction between liability in a bond and an agreement. (Para 10 , 16) |
| 5. judicial perspectives on bonds vs. agreements. (Para 12 , 13 , 15) |
1. The question involved in this writ petition whether the document filed by the respondent / plaintiff styled as 'Ikramama' dated 09.02.2015 is a bond as defined under S.2(5) (b) of the Indian Stamp Act , 1899 (hereinafter called as 'Act of 1899') or it is an agreement under S.2(e) of the Contract Act , 1872 (hereinafter called as 'Act of 1872').
2. The respondent / plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.50,000/- from the petitioner / defendant along with agreement dated 09.02.2015, in which the petitioner / defendant filed an application under S.35 of the Act of 1899 that the document i.e. agreement is not duly stamped as it is falling within the meaning of S.2(5) of the Act of 1899, therefore, it is not admissible in evidence and it will not be adjudicated, which was opposed by the respondent / plaintiff by filing objection as it is
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
