<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1994 (2) TMI 325 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295966</link>
    <description>An instrument executed in Form VI under the Kerala Abkari Act was held to be a conditional bond under the Kerala Stamp Act because it created an enforceable obligation to pay a specified sum on breach of stated conditions, rather than merely recording a pre-existing statutory liability. The document was further treated as an indemnity bond because its purpose was to protect the State against loss of duty on default, so the specific entry for indemnity bonds applied instead of the residuary bond entry. The majority view prevailed, the State&#039;s appeal succeeded, and the contrary dissent would have treated the instrument as outside the bond category.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2025 11:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=648041" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (2) TMI 325 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295966</link>
      <description>An instrument executed in Form VI under the Kerala Abkari Act was held to be a conditional bond under the Kerala Stamp Act because it created an enforceable obligation to pay a specified sum on breach of stated conditions, rather than merely recording a pre-existing statutory liability. The document was further treated as an indemnity bond because its purpose was to protect the State against loss of duty on default, so the specific entry for indemnity bonds applied instead of the residuary bond entry. The majority view prevailed, the State&#039;s appeal succeeded, and the contrary dissent would have treated the instrument as outside the bond category.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295966</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>