Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for New India Assurance Company LTD. VS Kusumanchi Kameshwara Rao...
Checking relevance for State Of Kerala VS Mcdowell And Company LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Punjab National Bank. LTD. VS Vikram Cotton Mills...
Punjab National Bank. LTD. VS Vikram Cotton Mills - 1969 0 Supreme(SC) 370 : The legal documents clarify that a ''''bond'''' and an ''''agreement'''' can be used interchangeably in certain contexts, particularly in guarantee contracts. In this case, the document executed by Ranjit Singh was explicitly referred to as an ''''agreement of guarantee'''' and was part of a set of documents securing repayment of a debt. The court held that the bond, though not expressly stating the principal debtor''''s identity, formed a valid contract of guarantee under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, which mandates that the liability of a surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless otherwise provided. The bond secured the ''''ultimate balance'''' due to the bank, indicating that the guarantee applied to the final amount determined after all claims were settled. This demonstrates that a bond, in this context, is a formal written agreement creating a suretyship obligation, and its legal effect is governed by contract law principles. The case law cited (Halsbury’s Laws of England and Re. Garner’s Motors Ltd.) reinforces that a composition scheme under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, does not release sureties unless the suretyship contract provides otherwise, affirming that the bond (as a guarantee agreement) remains enforceable against the surety even after a company''''s composition with creditors.Checking relevance for Raja Bahadur Dhanraj Girji VS Raja P. Parthasarathy Rayanimvaru...
Checking relevance for RAJA BAHADUR DHANRAJ GIRJI VS RAJA P. PARTHASARATHY RAYANIMVARU...
Checking relevance for MA SHWE MYA VS MAUNG HO HNAUNG...
Checking relevance for Ashokbhai Ramcharan Shrivastava VS Dhaniben Mohammedbhai Chauhan...
Checking relevance for Saba Sarif vs State Of U.P....
Checking relevance for Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited VS Amit Gupta...
Checking relevance for Safir VS Sajid...
Safir VS Sajid - 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 807 : The distinguishing feature of a bond, as defined under Section 2(a) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, is that the obligation to pay money must be created within the instrument itself. If the obligation is pre-existing—i.e., arises from prior transactions or agreements—then the document, even if it acknowledges a debt or liability, does not partake the character of a bond and is instead classified as an agreement. This principle was applied in the case where a promissory note was executed to acknowledge an outstanding amount from settled business accounts; the court held that since the liability was pre-existing and not created by the instrument, the document was an agreement, not a bond. Relevant case laws supporting this distinction were cited as being squarely applicable to the facts of the case.Checking relevance for Siddhi Sandeep Ladda VS Consortium Of National Law Universities...
Checking relevance for Kainikkara Abdurahiman VS Aalukkal Yunus...
Kainikkara Abdurahiman VS Aalukkal Yunus - 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 1210 : The essential difference between a bond and an agreement is that, in the case of a bond, a person obliges himself to do an act mentioned therein and the instrument itself expressly creates the obligation, whereas an agreement is nothing but a union, collection, copulation and conjunction of two or more minds in anything done or to be done. A bond creates an obligation to pay, and the obligation is not merely an acknowledgement of a pre-existing liability. If a document merely acknowledges a pre-existing liability, it is an agreement. The real test to determine whether a document is a bond or an agreement is to examine whether the obligation is created by the document itself or whether it is merely an acknowledgement of a pre-existing liability. This principle was affirmed in the case of Sreedharan vs. Gopi, 2003 KHC 420, where the court held that a document acknowledging an antecedent obligation or pre-existing liability cannot be a bond, and that an implied obligation cannot convert an acknowledgement into a bond.Checking relevance for Manda Suryakanthamma VS District Registrar of Assurance, Srikakulam...
Checking relevance for Rameshwar Bhartia VS State Of Assam...
Checking relevance for Chandrabhai K. Bhoir VS Krishna Arjun Bhoir...
Checking relevance for Ram Baran Prasad VS Ram Mohit Hazra...
Checking relevance for SANTSINGH VS MADANDAS PANIKA...
Checking relevance for State Of Bihar VS M. Homi...
Checking relevance for Shin Satellite Public Co. LTD. VS Jain Studios LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Joyman Bewa VS Easin Sarkar...
Joyman Bewa VS Easin Sarkar - 1926 0 Supreme(Cal) 260 : The judgment clarifies that a contract of suretyship may be oral or written and need not be in the form of a security bond in favor of the Court. This establishes a key distinction between a ''''bond'''' (which traditionally refers to a formal, often stamped, written instrument given to the Court as security) and an ''''agreement'''' (which can be oral or written, and does not require the formalities of a bond). The court emphasized that while a bond is a specific type of document often used in execution proceedings, a suretyship agreement can exist independently of such a bond, and its validity is not dependent on being in the form of a bond. This distinction is grounded in Section 145, C.P.C., which allows execution against a surety based on a valid contract, regardless of whether it takes the form of a bond.Checking relevance for M/s. Brahmayya and Co. Official Liquidators VS K. Srinivasan Thangirayar and others...
Checking relevance for S. Muthiah (2 defendant) VS V. Dhanakodi (Plaintiff)...
Checking relevance for CITIBANK VS JUGGILAL KAMLAOAT JUTE MILLS COMPANY LIMITED...
Checking relevance for K. V. Periyamianna Marakkayar And VS Banians And Co. ...
Checking relevance for LITTLE FLOWER KURIES & ENTERPRISES LTD. VS VICTORY...
LITTLE FLOWER KURIES & ENTERPRISES LTD. VS VICTORY - 1979 0 Supreme(Ker) 140 : The key difference between a ''''bond'''' and an ''''agreement'''' under the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, lies in the requirement of attestation by a witness. While both are legally binding arrangements creating rights and liabilities, a ''''bond'''' under Section 2(a)(ii) of the Act must be attested by a witness to qualify as such. In contrast, an ''''agreement'''' does not require attestation and is defined as a written instrument evidencing a contract. The court emphasized that all bonds are agreements, but not all agreements are bonds. Instruments that are not attested by a witness are classified as agreements and attract a fixed stamp duty under Article 5(c) of the Schedule, whereas bonds are liable to ad valorem duty under Article 13. This distinction was upheld in the case where instruments taken from chit fund subscribers were held to be agreements, not bonds, because they lacked witness attestation, and thus were properly stamped under Article 5(c).
