M/S GODWIN CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER, MEERUT DIVISION & ANR.

                [2025] 10 S.C.R. 368 : 2025 INSC 1207

                 M/s Godwin Construction Pvt. Ltd.
                                v.
                Commissioner, Meerut Division & Anr.
                        (Civil Appeal No. 7661 of 2014)
                                 08 October 2025
                      [Ahsanuddin Amanullah and
                      Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.]


                             Issue for Consideration
       Whether the stamp duty on the instrument “Security Bond cum
       Mortgage Deed”, is chargeable under Article 40 or Article 57 of
       Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act 1899.

                                    Headnotes†
       Indian Stamp Act 1899 – Article 40 or Article 57 of Schedule
       1-B – Stamp duty on the instrument “Security Bond cum
       Mortgage Deed”, if chargeable u/Article 40 or Article 57 of
       Schedule 1-B:
       Held: In matters of stamp duty, the decisive factor is not the
       nomenclature assigned to the instrument, but the substance of
       rights and obligations it embodies – Court is duty-bound to ascertain
       the true legal character of the instrument – In the instant case,
       the appellant executed a “Security Bond cum Mortgage Deed”
       in favour of the Meerut Development Authority – The instrument
       executed by the appellant fulfils the essential characteristics of
       a mortgage deed – In substance and effect, the deed confers a
       right over specified properties in favour of the Meerut Development
       Authority to secure performance of an obligation, while preserving
       the appellant’s interest until full discharge of obligation – The
       nomenclature “Security Bond cum Mortgage Deed” is, therefore,
       inconsequential, as it is the substance and operative provisions of
       the instrument which govern its character for the purposes of stamp
       duty – Further, it is apparent from the recitals of the instrument titled
       “Security Bond cum Mortgage Deed” executed by the appellant
       that only two parties are involved viz. the Meerut Development
       Authority and the appellant – The deed was not executed by a


* Author
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                            369

                 M/s Godwin Construction Pvt. Ltd. v.
                 Commissioner, Meerut Division & Anr.

     surety but by the principal debtor/appellant, the company, through
     its director – The company itself mortgaged the properties and
     not the director in his individual capacity – A company, though a
     juristic person, is not a sentient being, consequently, it must act
     through its directors – Thus, the properties were not mortgaged
     by a third party, but by the principal debtor itself, which does not
     attract Article 57 – In the absence of any surety, to attract Article
     57 of the Indian Stamp Act, the deed executed by the appellant
     cannot be termed as a security bond – It, however, fulfils all the
     requirements of a mortgage deed, falling under the ambit of Article
     40 of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act – Impugned judgments
     not interfered with. [Paras 14, 17, 24-26]
     Indian Stamp Act 1899 – Article 57 of Schedule 1-B – Operation
     of, explained – Contract Act, 1872 – s.126 – “Contract of
     guarantee”, “surety”, “principal debtor” and “creditor”.
     [Paras 20-23]

                                List of Acts
     Indian Stamp Act, 1899; Indian Contract Act, 1872.

                             List of Keywords
     Article 40 or Article 57 of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act
     1899; “Security Bond cum Mortgage Deed”; Security Bond or
     Mortgage Deed; Nature and substance of the deed; Chargeability
     of the instrument under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899; Stamp duty;
     Nomenclature; Not nomenclature assigned to the instrument;
     Substance of rights and obligations; Mortgage deed; Deed not
     executed by a surety but by the principal debtor; Section 126,
     Contract Act, 1872; “Contract of guarantee”; “Surety”; “Principal
     debtor”; “Creditor”.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7661 of 2014
     From the Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2013 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Allahabad in WP No. 31966 of 2012
     With
     Civil Appeal No. 12552 of 2025
370                                                       [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


                          Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant:
       Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Advs., Akshat Sharma,
       Amrit Pradhan, Sandeep Singh, Pahlad Singh Sharma, Vaibhav
       Kulkarni, Aniket Deepak Agrawal, Aditeya Bali.
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       Shaurya Sahay, Aditya Kumar, Ruchil Raj, Bhakti Vardhan Singh.

                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

       Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

1.     Leave granted in SLP (Civil) No.36434 of 2014.

       FACTUAL MATRIX IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7661 OF 2014
2.     Civil Appeal No.7661 of 2014 calls in question the impugned
       order dated 22.01.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature
       at Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 31966/2012, whereby the High
       Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, affirming
       the order dated 11.06.2012 passed by respondent No.1, which in
       turn affirmed the order dated 15.09.2010 passed by respondent
       No.2, directing the appellant to pay Rs.4,61,760/- (Rupees Four
       Lakh Sixty-one Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty) as deficient
       stamp duty under Article 40(b) of Schedule 1-B of the Stamp Act,
       together with penalty of Rs.100/- along with interest at the rate
       of 1.5% per month from the date of execution of the instrument
       till recovery.
3.     On 18.12.2006, the Meerut Development Authority allowed the
       appellant to develop a colony known as “Global City, Abdullahpur,
       Meerut”. On 19.12.2006, the appellant executed a “Security Bond
       cum Mortgage Deed” in favour of the Meerut Development Authority
       under Article 57 of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 to
       secure performance of all obligations relating to the development of
       the colony, including payment of external development charges and
       provision of requisite amenities. The appellant mortgaged specified
       plots of land under the deed, totalling 2,934.45 square meters.
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                        371

                 M/s Godwin Construction Pvt. Ltd. v.
                 Commissioner, Meerut Division & Anr.

4.   The appellant transferred all their interest in the properties specified
     in the deed to the Meerut Development Authority, intending that they
     shall remain mortgaged. In case of default of liability, the Meerut
     Development Authority shall be entitled to sell the mortgaged
     properties to realize an amount of ₹1,00,44,000/- (Rupees One
     Crore and Forty-four Thousand). The appellant had also deposited
     an advance deposit of ₹15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh) and upon
     the full discharge of all obligations, the surety under the bond and
     obligation will be void. A stamp duty of ₹100/- was paid, in accordance
     with Article 57 of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act.
5.   On 16.02.2008, the Deputy Commissioner (Stamps), Meerut Circle,
     Meerut, issued a notice to the appellant stating that the stamp
     duty was payable under Article 40 of Schedule 1-B of the Indian
     Stamp Act, and initiated recovery proceedings under Section 33(4)
     for remaining deficit stamp duty of ₹4,61,660/- (Rupees Four Lakh
     Sixty-one Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty).
6.   On 07.07.2010, the appellant filed objections to the notice dated
     01.05.2008 before respondent No.2. By order dated 15.09.2010,
     respondent No.2 held that the instrument described as “Security Bond
     cum Mortgage Deed” was chargeable under Article 40 of Schedule
     1-B of the Indian Stamp Act and not under Article 57 as claimed
     by the appellant. Accordingly, he confirmed the demand for deficit
     stamp duty of ₹4,61,660/- together with a penalty of ₹100/- totalling
     ₹4,61,760/- and interest at the rate of 1.5% per month with effect from
     the date of execution of the said instrument till the date of recovery.
7.   Aggrieved by the order dated 15.09.2010 passed by respondent No.2,
     the appellant filed Stamp Appeal No.8/2010 under Section 56(1)(b)
     of the Indian Stamp Act before the respondent No.1. However, the
     said appeal was dismissed by respondent No.1 vide order dated
     11.06.2012.
8.   Aggrieved, the appellant preferred Writ Petition No.31966/2012 before
     the Hon’ble High Court. Vide judgment dated 22.01.2013, the High
     Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Security Bond cum
     Mortgage Deed dated 19.12.2006 was executed solely between the
     appellant and the Meerut Development Authority as a mortgage deed.
     In the absence of any surety or third party, it was chargeable under
     Article 40 of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Pursuant
     to the above dismissal, the present Civil Appeal has been filed.
372                                                         [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       FACTUAL MATRIX IN CIVIL APPEAL ARISING OUT OF SLP (C)
       NO.36434/2014
9.     The appellant applied for a business loan of Rs.1,66,00,000/- (Rupees
       One Crore and Sixty-six Lakh) from the Allahabad Bank. To ensure
       re-payment of loan, he executed a “Security Bond or Mortgage Deed”
       placing immoveable property being plot No.122-M measuring 0.202
       hectares, situated in Village Jugauli Tappa Sirsia, Pargana Vinayakpur,
       Tehsil Nautanwa, District Maharajganj as security with the bank. The
       deed was executed on a stamp paper of ₹.100/- in compliance with
       Article 57 of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
10. The deed was presented before Sub-Registrar for registration on
    04.12.1995 which was forwarded to the Deputy Collector (Stamp),
    with his report dated 06.01.1996, observing that the document was
    a mortgage deed, and chargeable under Article 40, Schedule 1-B of
    the Indian Stamp Act, thus, indicated a stamp deficit of Rs.1,37,500/-
    (Rupees One Lakh Thirty-seven Thousand and Five Hundred). The
    Deputy Collector (Stamp) vide order dated 10.04.1997, concurred
    with the Sub-Registrar’s report and held that the deed in question was
    a simple mortgage deed chargeable with stamp duty at the rate of
    Rs.62.50 per thousand. Aggrieved thereto, appellant preferred Stamp
    Revision No.59/1997-98 but the same was dismissed. Assailing the
    orders dated 10.04.1997 and 10.08.2001; the appellant filed Writ
    Petition No.33415/2001 before the High Court. The High Court after
    dealing with the issue on merits, dismissed the writ petition, finding
    no perversity in the impugned orders.

       SUBMISSIONS
11. Learned counsel for the appellants in both the Appeals submit that
    the instrument executed by the appellants should be charged for
    stamp duty as per Article 57 of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp
    Act. Learned counsel further asserted that the subject deeds are not
    simplicitor mortgage deeds as defined under Section 2(17) of the
    Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Hence, the stamp duty cannot be levied
    under Article 40 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that
    the impugned orders have rightly held that the deeds executed by
    the appellants in favour of the Meerut Development Authority and
    the Allahabad Bank respectively are chargeable under Article 40 of
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                            373

                  M/s Godwin Construction Pvt. Ltd. v.
                  Commissioner, Meerut Division & Anr.

     Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Learned counsel assert
     that the orders of the High Court do not require any interference.
13. The question which falls for our consideration in both the Appeals
    is whether the stamp duty on the instrument “Security Bond cum
    Mortgage Deed”, is chargeable under Article 40 or Article 57 of
    Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act 1899.

     ANALYSIS

     CIVIL APPEAL NO.7661 OF 2014
14. It is trite that, in matters of stamp duty, the decisive factor is not the
    nomenclature assigned to the instrument, but the substance of rights
    and obligations it embodies. The Court is duty-bound to ascertain the
    true legal character of the instrument. In the instant case, the appellant
    has executed a “Security Bond cum Mortgage Deed” in favour of the
    Meerut Development Authority. Unless the nature and effect of such an
    instrument are conclusively identified, the application of any provision
    for the determination of stamp duty on instruments under the Indian
    Stamp Act, 1899, cannot be undertaken. It is necessary to have
    regard to the operative recitals and clauses of the deed executed by
    the appellant. For this purpose, the relevant portions of the “Security
    Bond cum Mortgage Deed dated 19.12.2006 are extracted below:
           “STAMP DUTY RS 100/- IMPROVEMENT TRUST DUTY
           NILL TOTAL RS 100/- THIS SECURITY Bond CUM
           MORTGAGE DEED is being executed by surety to secure
           due performance of contract and for due discharge of
           liability. The stamp duty is being paid under Article 57 of the
           schedule I-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1989, as amended
           in its application of Uttar Pradesh.
           THIS INDENTURE IS MADE at Meerut on the 19th day
           December 2006.
                                    BETWEEN
           Godwin Construction Pvt. Ltd. through Director Shri
           Jitender Bajwa R/o A-151, Defence Colony, Meerut
           hereinafter called SURETIES of the one part which
           expression shall, unless repugnant to the context or in
           consistent with the subject, include their heirs, executors
           and administrators etc.
374                                                     [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                      Supreme Court Reports


                                   AND
       MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Vikas Bhawan,
       Meerut hereinafter called MDA of the other part, which
       expression, unless repugnant to the context or inconsistent
       with the subject shall include its interest assigns,
       transferees in interest etc.
       WHEREAS M/S Godwin Construction Pvt. Ltd., A-151,
       Defence Colony, Meerut hereinafter referred to as the
       COLONIZER is developing a colony, under the name and
       style of Global City, Abdullapur Meerut hereinafter referred
       to as colony and,
       WHEREAS MDA has agreed to approve the lay out plan
       of the colony and colony itself provided to Colonizer
       discharges all the liability to develop and colony together
       with all required amenities and for due discharge of the
       liabilities of the Colonizers the MDA has asked to furnish
       security of Rs. 1,15,44,000/- for external development
       charge which will be released after the payment of external
       development charge of the colony as per terms and
       conditions and bye laws (sic) of the MDA And.
       WHEREAS the sureties or the Guarantors have in
       consideration of approving the lay out of colony by the
       MDA has agreed to give security of 1,00,44,000/- in the
       manner hereinafter mentioned & have deposited Rs.
       15,00,000/- as advance in the shape of Demand Draft.

       NOW THIS DEED WITNESSES :-
       1. THAT the sureties to secure the due performance the
       contract and for due discharge of the liability to pay of
       external development charge of the colony Global City,
       Abdullapur, Meerut and all amenities, work of the Colony,
       the surety hereby transfer to MDA all their interests in the
       property detailed in the schedule here to with intent that the
       same shall remain and be charged by way of mortgage.
       2. THAT the Sureties declare that:-
       a. THAT Sureties are the absolute owners of the property
       and free from encumbrances of any kind.
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                        375

                   M/s Godwin Construction Pvt. Ltd. v.
                   Commissioner, Meerut Division & Anr.

          b. THE SURETIES are entitled to sell, transfer or alienate
          the said property.
          c. THAT SURETIES have not deposited delivered that the
          title deed/s of the property with any one else and have
          not created any charge by way of mortgage or any other
          encumbrance on the property.
          3. THAT SURETIES undertake not be create charge or
          mortgage or transfer or part with possession of the said
          property without the consent of the MDA in writing.
          4. THAT SURETIES hereby authorise and appoint the
          Colonizer as agent to acknowledge on behalf of the Sureties
          the liability and security hereby created.
          SURETIES covenant in case of non-discharge of the liability
          by the Colonizer within the stipulated period, the MDA shall
          be within its rights so cause the property mortgaged to
          be sold for the realization of the amount to the extent of
          Rs. 1,00,44,000/-.
          NOW THIS CONDITIONS of the written bond are such
          that if the colonizer performs and fulfills the obligations
          and discharge all the liability regarding Completion of
          the said company, the said surety under the above said
          written bond and obligation shall be void and of no effect
          otherwise the same shall be and remain in full force.

                       SCHEDULE REFERRED TO ABOVE
                     All the land Global City, Abdullapur Meerut

           LIST FOR MORTGAGE PLOTS

           Plot No.              Area (in sq. mts)
           01 to 03              486.00
           13 to 16              648.00
           69 to 71              336.00
           73 to 82              1464.45
                                 _______
           Total                 2934.45
376                                                        [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


           IN WITNESS WHEREOF the above written surety Bond
           has signed these present at Meerut 19th day of December
           year 2006.”
15. Having set out the operative clauses of the instrument executed
    by the appellant, it is evident that the instrument records that the
    appellant transferred all their interest in the properties detailed in
    the schedule to the Meerut Development Authority. The transfer was
    made with the intent that the same shall remain charged by way of
    mortgage to secure due performance of obligations in developing
    the colony and payment of external development charges.
16. The instrument further stipulates that, in the event of default, the
    Meerut Development Authority shall be entitled to sell the mortgaged
    properties to realize the amount. Having thus analysed the operative
    clauses and substance of the instrument, it is apposite to refer to
    the definition of “Mortgage Deed” under Section 2(17) of the Indian
    Stamp Act ,1899 which reads as follows:
           “2. Definitions. — In this Act, unless there is something
           repugnant in the subject or context,—
           ….
           “(17) “Mortgage-deed”. — “mortgage-deed” includes
           every instrument whereby, for the purpose of securing
           money advanced, or to be advanced, by way of loan,
           or an existing or future debt, or the performance of an
           engagement, one person transfers, or creates, to, or in
           favour of, another, a right over or in respect of specified
           property:”
17. When juxtaposed with Section 2(17) of the Indian Stamp Act, it
    is evident that the instrument executed by the appellant fulfils the
    essential characteristics of a mortgage deed. In substance and
    effect, the deed confers a right over specified properties in favour
    of the Meerut Development Authority to secure performance of an
    obligation, while preserving the appellant’s interest until full discharge
    of obligation. The nomenclature “Security Bond cum Mortgage Deed”
    is, therefore, inconsequential, as it is the substance and operative
    provisions of the instrument which govern its character for the
    purposes of stamp duty.
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                         377

                 M/s Godwin Construction Pvt. Ltd. v.
                 Commissioner, Meerut Division & Anr.

18. With the nature and substance of the deed thus established, we
    now turn to the pivotal question of chargeability of the instrument
    under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. In light of its nomenclature as
    a “Security Bond cum Mortgage Deed”, the relevant provisions for
    determining the stamp duty are confined to Articles 40 and 57 of
    Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The relevant provisions
    are reproduced below for ready reference:
          “40. MORTGAGE-DEED, not being an AGREEMENT
          RELATING-TO DEPOSIT OF TITLE-DEEDS, PAWN
          OR PLEDGE (NO. 6), BOTTOMRY BOND (NO. 16),
          MORTGAGE OF A CROP (NO. 41), RESPONDENTIA
          BOND (No. 56), OR SECURITY BOND (NO. 57)—
          (a) when possession of the property or any part of the
          property comprised in such deed is given by the mortgagor
          or agreed to be given;
          (b) when possession is not given or agreed to be given
          as aforesaid;
          Explanation.—A mortgagor who gives to the mortgagee a
          power-of-attorney to collect rents or a lease of the property
          mortgaged or part thereof, is deemed to give possession
          within the meaning of this Article.
          (c) when a collateral or auxiliary or additional or
          substituted security, or by way of further assurance for the
          abovementioned purpose where the principal or primary
          security is duly stamped—
          for every sum secured not exceeding Rs.1,000 and for
          every Rs. 1,000 or part thereof secured in excess of Rs.
          1,000.
                                  Exemptions
          (1) Instruments, executed by person taking advances under
          the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883 (XIX of 1883), or
          the Agriculturists’ Loan Act, 1884 (XII of 1884), or by their
          sureties as security for the repayment of such advances.
          (2) Letter of hypothecation accompanying a bill of exchange.
                                       ***
378                                                          [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


           57. SECURITY-BOND OR MORTGAGE-DEED, executed
           by way of security for the due execution of an office,
           or to account for money or other property received by
           virtue thereof or executed by a surety to secure the due
           performance of a contract,—
           (a) when the amount secured does not exceed Rs. 1,000;
           (b) in any other case......”
19. It is contended on behalf of the appellant, that the deed falls within
    the ambit of Article 57 of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act,
    1899, on the footing that it partakes the character of a security
    bond. Hence, it is necessary to examine the scope and application
    of Article 57.
20. Article 57 of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act operates in two
    distinct limbs. The first limb covers security bond or mortgage deed
    executed by way of security for the due execution of office, or to
    account for money or other properties received by virtue thereof.
21. The second limb, demarcated by the words “or executed by a surety
    to secure the due performance of a contract”, is restricted in its
    application to the execution of security bond or mortgage deed by
    a surety to secure the obligations of another, and does not extend
    to cases where the principal itself executes the deed to secure its
    own obligations.
22. The term “surety” must be strictly understood in accordance with
    Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Section 126 is
    reproduced below for reference:
           “126. “Contract of guarantee”, “surety”, “principal
           debtor” and “creditor”.—A “contract of guarantee” is a
           contract to perform the promise, or discharge the liability,
           of a third person in case of his default. The person who
           gives the guarantee is called the “surety”; the person in
           respect of whose default the guarantee is given is called the
           “principal debtor”, and the person to whom the guarantee
           is given is called the “creditor”. A guarantee may be either
           oral or written.”
23. It follows that a contract of guarantee is inherently tripartite, consisting
    of the surety, principal debtor, and a creditor. Consequently, the
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                        379

                 M/s Godwin Construction Pvt. Ltd. v.
                 Commissioner, Meerut Division & Anr.

     essential requirement for invoking Article 57 is the presence of a
     surety distinct from the principal debtor. Where the principal debtor
     itself executes a deed mortgaging its own property, Article 57 is
     inapplicable.
24. In the case at hand, it is apparent from the recitals of the instrument
    titled “Security Bond cum Mortgage Deed” executed by the appellant
    that only two parties are involved — the Meerut Development Authority
    and the appellant, M/s. Godwin Construction Pvt. Ltd.
25. It stands beyond doubt, that the deed was not executed by a surety
    but by the principal debtor/appellant, the company, through its director.
    It is evident that the company itself mortgaged the properties and not
    the director in his individual capacity. A company, though a juristic
    person, is not a sentient being, consequently, it must act through
    its directors. This firmly establishes that the properties were not
    mortgaged by a third party, but by the principal debtor itself, which,
    in our opinion, does not attract Article 57.
26. In the absence of any surety, to attract Article 57 of the Indian Stamp
    Act, the deed executed by the appellant cannot be termed as a
    security bond. It, however, fulfils all the requirements of a mortgage
    deed, falling under the ambit of Article 40 of Schedule 1-B of the
    Indian Stamp Act.

     CIVIL APPEAL ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.36434/2014
27. In the Civil Appeal arising out S.L.P. (Civil) No. 36434/2014, as well,
    it is similarly observed that the instrument executed by the appellant
    in favour of the Allahabad Bank, carries the nomenclature “Security
    Bond or Mortgage Deed”. This instrument created a mortgage over
    certain immoveable property at Village Jugauli Tappa Sirsia, Pargana
    Vinayakpur, Tehsil Nautanwa, District Maharajganj to secure the loan
    repayment of the business loan. A careful perusal of the operative
    provisions of the instrument clearly indicates that it confers a right
    over specified property to secure repayment.
28. This Court finds that the instrument satisfies the essential
    characteristics of a mortgage deed as defined under Section 2(17)
    of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The nomenclature “Security Bond or
    Mortgage Deed” is not determinative; the substance of the instrument
    governs its character while assessing stamp duty.
380                                                         [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


29. As observed by us in the preceding paragraphs, the second limb of
    Article 57 of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, is confined to
    instruments executed by a surety to secure the obligations of another.
    In the present case, although clause III of the deed stipulates that
    the mortgagor shall be personally liable to repay the loan, a careful
    reading of the deed makes it manifestly clear that Shri Naveen
    Mittal executed the deed solely in his capacity as the director of the
    company M/s Ajay Forging Pvt. Ltd, acting on behalf of the company.
    No distinct surety exists apart from the principal debtor. Accordingly,
    reference to personal liability in the deed pertains to the director acting
    on behalf of the company and does not transform the instrument
    into a security bond under Article 57 of Schedule 1-B of the Indian
    Stamp Act, 1899. In substance and effect, the deed constitutes a
    mortgage executed by the principal debtor itself, thereby attracting
    the provisions of Article 40 of the Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp
    Act, 1899, for the purposes of stamp duty.
30. In our opinion, the impugned judgments passed by the High Court of
    Judicature at Allahabad do not suffer from any infirmity as to warrant
    interference by this Court. The Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

       Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey