https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301860 The appellate court ruled that the document in question was not a promissory note due to the conditional promise to pay upon demand being made after two years, contrary to the requirement of an unconditional commitment. The court emphasized the technical meaning of "on demand" in promissory notes and rejected the argument that it should be treated as payable on demand under the Stamp Act. Additionally, the court dismissed the classification of the document as a bond, concluding that it did not meet the criteria under the Stamp Act. The court allowed the revision application, dismissing the plaintiff's suit, and ordered each party to bear their own costs. en-us Tue, 29 Nov 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Apr 2022 11:16:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301860 The appellate court ruled that the document in question was not a promissory note due to the conditional promise to pay upon demand being made after two years, contrary to the requirement of an unconditional commitment. The court emphasized the technical meaning of "on demand" in promissory notes and rejected the argument that it should be treated as payable on demand under the Stamp Act. Additionally, the court dismissed the classification of the document as a bond, concluding that it did not meet the criteria under the Stamp Act. The court allowed the revision application, dismissing the plaintiff's suit, and ordered each party to bear their own costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 29 Nov 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301860