<?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>2025 (10) TMI 446 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779650</link>
    <description>Stamp duty classification depends on the substance of the instrument, not its title. A document styled as a &quot;Security Bond cum Mortgage Deed&quot; was held to be a mortgage deed because its recitals showed transfer of immovable property and creation of a charge to secure obligations and repayment, bringing it within the definition of mortgage deed under the Stamp Act. Article 57 did not apply because a security bond under that provision requires a surety arrangement in the sense of a contract of guarantee involving a surety, principal debtor and creditor; here, the company executed the instrument through its director and no separate surety existed. The document was therefore chargeable under Article 40, not Article 57.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2025 10:20:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=857514" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 446 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779650</link>
      <description>Stamp duty classification depends on the substance of the instrument, not its title. A document styled as a &quot;Security Bond cum Mortgage Deed&quot; was held to be a mortgage deed because its recitals showed transfer of immovable property and creation of a charge to secure obligations and repayment, bringing it within the definition of mortgage deed under the Stamp Act. Article 57 did not apply because a security bond under that provision requires a surety arrangement in the sense of a contract of guarantee involving a surety, principal debtor and creditor; here, the company executed the instrument through its director and no separate surety existed. The document was therefore chargeable under Article 40, not Article 57.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779650</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>