IKBAL AHMAD Vs. GIRDHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Sameer Seth, counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Section 2(5) of the Indian Stamps Act defines a "bond" while section 2(23) defines "receipt". All the three clauses of section 2(5) defining a bond do not cover the document in dispute. The documents does nowhere say that on happening of any event or on non-happening of any event, the liability would become zero. The document is not attested by any person and, similarly, the document nowhere says that the executant of the document bind himself for and on behalf of any other person. If the three conditions to make a document a bond are not available then the document cannot be termed to be a bond.

(3.) Section 2(23) when defines receipt, it clearly says that if a person acknowledges receipt of the money and executes a document then such document would be a receipt. In the present matter, the language of the document would clearly show that the defendant was acknowledging receipt of a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- and was also observing to repay the said amount. Once the defendant in the document has acknowledged the receipt of the money then the document would come within the definition of the receipt. In our opinion, the learned Court below was not unjustified in overruling the objection raised by the defendant. The petition is dismissed.