IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.NO.853 OF 2008 Date:03.02.2011 Between:- Board of Trustees for Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Rep.by its Deputy Secretary and Alternative Attorney of Visakhapatnam Port Trust Board, Visakhapatnam. ..Petitioner And V.R.M.Prasad and two others .. Respondents ORDER:- The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the docket order dated 17-01-2008 in O.S.No.238 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereunder and whereby, the petitioner/plaintiff was directed to get the document impounded under the provisions of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, “the Act”). 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that it is an agreement which falls under Article 6(A)(d) of Schedule 1A of the Act and as it was written on Rs.100/- stamp paper, it requires no stamp duty and penalty and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He also contended that the nomenclature of the document is not a decisive factor to determine whether it is a bond or agreement. But the contents have to be looked into for the purpose of deciding the true nature of the document. 3. As seen from the document, it was executed by the first respondent herein undertaking to serve the organization of the petitioner for a minimum period of five years, failing which he shall pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Board. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is an agreement, but it cannot be accepted because there is no mutual obligation or responsibilities fixed in the document in case of breach of any terms and conditions of the document. The essentials of a bond are (i) there must be an undertaking to pay (ii) the sum should be a sum of money but not necessarily certain (iii) the payment will be to a person named in the instrument (iv) the maker should sign it (v) the instrument should be attested by a witness and (vi) it must not be payable to order or bearer. All the essential ingredients are satisfied with the document in question. Therefore, the document in question is a bond within the meaning of Section 2(5) of Stamp Act, whereas every promise and every set of promises forming the consideration for each other, is an agreement. In other words, agreement is an act of both parties, whether legal obligation is incurred by one or by both of them. Therefore, the expression ‘agreement’ stresses on consensuality required in a transaction. Furthermore, the first respondent has not signed in the document so as to render himself liable for any consequences incase of breach of the terms. Therefore, the contents of the document clearly go to show that it is a bond, which is an instrument within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act. Under Section 35 of the Act, an instrument cannot be received as evidence for any purpose in the suit unless the stamp duty and penalty is paid. In Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijaya Krishna Mishra,[1] at para No.21, it is held thus: “Section 35 of the Act, however, rules out applicability of such provision as it is categorically provided therein that a document of this nature shall not be admitted for any purpose whatsoever. If all purposes for which the document is sought to be brought in evidence are excluded, we fail to see any reason as to how the document would be admissible for collateral purposes”. Therefore, the trial Court rightly impounded the document for payment of stamp duty and penalty. Therefore, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 3rd February, 2011 AMD [1] AIR 2009 SC 1489