JUDGMENT : A.J. Desai, J. 1. A following question is involved in the present writ petition for consideration: "Whether a document dated 23/03/2000 executed by the petitioner in favour of the Bank to avail a Bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs) would be chargeable with stamp duty under Article 6 or under Article 14 as provided under Schedule-I of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958?" 2. Brief facts, emerge from the record, are as under: "2.1 That the petitioner, who is a owner of piece of non-agricultural land of Himmatnagar Town, has executed Memorandum of deed on 23/03/2000 with the bank namely The Mehsana Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited, for availing a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-. He has deposited the title-deeds of the immovable property with the Bank. He has also declared that in addition to deposit of title-deeds of the property, he shall pay the amount of debts along with interest and expenses. The said document was signed by two persons as witnesses, who are partners along with the petitioner of one Patel Industries, who intended to start manufacturing and repairing of transformer on the said property. The petitioner had paid stamp duty as per Article 6 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Stamp Act. 2.2 Auditor General has examined the said document and found that the deed is not properly stamped since the same is not a "document" as treated by the petitioner as well as by the registering authority and, therefore, has referred the matter to the Deputy Collector, who is empowered to examine such instrument and decide as to Whether appropriate stamp is paid on the said instrument or not? 2.3 Deputy Collector by order dated 14/02/2006 held that the deed in question was not a "mortgage by deposit of title-deeds" but was in the nature of "bond" and, therefore, the petitioner was asked to pay the deficit stamp duty. 2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said decision, the petitioner had preferred revision application u/s. 53(1) of the Bombay Stamp Act, which was accepted by the Chief Controlling Revenue Officer on the ground that the order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The matter was remanded to the Deputy Collector by the authority vide its order dated 15/12/2007. The matter was remanded to the Deputy Collector by the authority vide its order dated 15/12/2007. 2.5 Subsequent to the remand, after examining the material on record and considering the submissions raised by the petitioner, Deputy Collector held that the deed is required to be stamped as per Article 14 and passed an order on 30/06/2008. The said order was challenged by way of filing an appeal being Appeal No. 41 of 2009 u/s. 53(1) of the Bombay Stamp Act, before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, who has dismissed the said appeal vide order dated 12/03/2010 and confirmed the order of the Deputy Collector. 2.6 The petitioner has challenged the order of Chief Controlling Revenue Officer by way of filing a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 7642 of 2010 before this Court. The said petition was disposed of by order dated 29/07/2010 (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.K. Rathod) and asked the Chief Controlling Revenue Officer to consider the submissions made by the petitioner and to pass afresh order." Chief Controlling Revenue Officer, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and examining the merits and demerits of the case, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner vide order dated 10/11/2010. Hence, this petition. 3. Pursuant to the Notice issued by this Court, Mr. K.M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader has appeared and opposed this petition and supported the orders passed by the authorities below and assisted the Court by taking through various provisions of law and several judgments. 4. Mr. R.K. Mansuri, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the Chief Controlling Revenue Officer has miserably failed in scrutinizing the deed of the year 2000, which clearly suggests that the petitioner had only deposited the title-deeds and had never given any "bond" while availing the bank guarantee from the concerned bank. He would submit that the deed itself makes it clear that it is a "deed of equitable mortgage" and not a "bond". He would submit that two persons, who have signed the said deed, are the partners of Patel Industries, for which, bank guarantee was availed by the petitioner and only on that ground, the document cannot be treated as a "bond" as defined u/s. 2(c) of the Bombay Stamp Act. He would submit that two persons, who have signed the said deed, are the partners of Patel Industries, for which, bank guarantee was availed by the petitioner and only on that ground, the document cannot be treated as a "bond" as defined u/s. 2(c) of the Bombay Stamp Act. 4.1 He would further submit that Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 deals with different types of mortgagees and case of the petitioner is covered u/s. 58(f) of The Transfer of Property Act. He would submit that the petitioner had delivered a document of title-deeds of the immovable property belongs to the petitioner with an intention to create a security and such transaction is called a "mortgage by deposit of title-deeds" and, therefore, the case would fall under Article 6 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Stamp Act and accordingly he had already paid the stamp duty. He, therefore, would submit that the authorities below have committed an error by treating the document as a "bond". 4.2 By taking me through the deed, he would submit that intention of the petitioner was clear while executing the deed since at different places in the deed, it was made clear that only title-deeds are being deposited with the bank for availing bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.15 Lacs and, therefore, interpretation made by the authorities below are contrary to the provisions of law. 4.3 In support of his submissions, he has replied upon unreported decision of this Court, delivered in the case of Premal Sanjaybhai Patel v. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 15466 of 2010 on 01/08/2012. By relying upon the aforesaid decision, he would submit that coordinate bench of this Court has held that the authority is bound to examine the nature of mortgage, which is not properly done in the present case and, therefore, the petition may be allowed and the order passed by the authority below may be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, Mr. K.M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader has opposed this petition and has supported the orders passed by the authorities below. 5. On the other hand, Mr. K.M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader has opposed this petition and has supported the orders passed by the authorities below. He would submit that if the entire deed is examined and scrutinized, the petitioner while availing bank guarantee of Rs.15,00,000/-, in addition to deposit of title-deeds, assured that the debt shall be repaid along with interest and expenses and which was signed by two witnesses and, therefore, the deed in question can also be treated as a "bond" as defined u/s. 2 (c) of the Bombay Stamp Act. He would submit that section 2 (c) of the Stamp Act defines a "Bond", which includes any instrument attested by a witness and not payable to order or bearer, whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another. He would submit that while charging the stamp duty upon a document, the entire deed is to be scrutinized, which has been carried out by the authorities below and have rightly come to the conclusion that the instrument can be treated as a "bond" in addition to submission of deposit of title-deeds. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon unreported decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Chandrakant Baliram Vaidya v. Madhav Chhagan Patil on 21/02/1995 and would submit that Bombay High Court by considering several decisions, has held that an instrument itself is required to be perused. That when a party agrees to pay interest, etc. and which has been assisted by a witness, the said deed is a "bond" and, accordingly, stamp duty is required to be charged. He would further submit that even the deed in question discloses that the petitioner had deposited the title-deeds, however, when he has declared that the debt shall be paid along with interest and cost and has been attested by two witnesses, the authority can charge for such stamp, which would be higher from either of them. In support of his submission, he has also relied upon unreported decision of Madras High Court delivered in the case of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Madras v. Rani Pictures dated 27/01/1969 and would submit that the authorities below have not committed any error in passing the impugned order and, therefore, the petition may be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 6. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. As stated in the beginning, the case moves around the document in question i.e. Memorandum of Deed dated 23/03/2000 executed by the petitioner, which as claimed by the petitioner, is an equitable mortgage by "deposit of title-deeds". The document in question suggests that the petitioner had declared that he is the owner and occupier of the property situated at Himmatnagar Town and intended to avail the bank guarantee by depositing the title-deeds of the said property and accordingly he has signed the document. Two other persons on different columns have signed the said document, though they might be the partners in the business. 7. It is an undisputed fact that those two persons are not the owners of the property, of which the title-deeds were deposited with the bank by the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner had deposited the title-deeds, however, in clause 4 of the said deed, it was declared by him that for security of debt, he has deposited the title-deeds and undertook to pay interest, expenses, etc, which has been attested by two witnesses. In background of the said factual aspect, provision of section 58(f) of The Transfer of Property Act read with section 2(c) of the Bombay Stamp Act, are required to be considered, which reads as under: "Section 58. "Mortgage", "mortgagor", "mortgagee", "mortgage-money" and "mortgage-deed" defined.-- (a)..... (b)..... (c)..... (d)..... (e)..... In background of the said factual aspect, provision of section 58(f) of The Transfer of Property Act read with section 2(c) of the Bombay Stamp Act, are required to be considered, which reads as under: "Section 58. "Mortgage", "mortgagor", "mortgagee", "mortgage-money" and "mortgage-deed" defined.-- (a)..... (b)..... (c)..... (d)..... (e)..... (f) Mortgage by deposit of title-deeds.--Where a person in any of the following towns, namely, the towns of Calcutta, Madras, [and Bombay], and in any other town which the [State Government concerned] may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, delivers to a creditor or his agent documents of title to immovable property, with intent to create a security thereon, the transaction is called a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds." Section 2(c) "bond" includes, (i) any instruments where by a person obliges himself to pay money to another on condition that the obligation shall be void if a specified act is performed, or is not performed, as the case may be; (ii) any instrument attested by a witness and not payable to order or bearer, whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another; and (iii) any instrument so attested whereby a person, obliges himself to deliver grain or other agricultural produce to another; As per section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, the person has to simply deliver the title-deeds of immovable property to the creditor. Here in the instant case, the petitioner though the deed in question has sought a bank guarantee for his business in lieu of which, has himself obliged to repay which is evident from in fact that his personal property i.e. Survey No. 51/2/5, Village: Himmatnagar, Taluka: Himmatnagar, District: Sabarkantha, has been put as security. Such fact of the petitioner having himself assured the repayment of bank guarantee by putting as security his personal property, clearly attracts ingredients of a 'bond' as defined under the Stamp Act. This order and above the fact that the deed is also attested by witnesses. Thus, by the deed in question (a) the petitioner has himself obliged to repay in his personal capacity a bank guarantee sought for his business and (b) the instrument is attested by witnesses, therefore, in my opinion, the decision referred by the Bombay High Court in the case of Chandrakant Baliram Vaidya (supra) would be applicable to the present case. Thus, by the deed in question (a) the petitioner has himself obliged to repay in his personal capacity a bank guarantee sought for his business and (b) the instrument is attested by witnesses, therefore, in my opinion, the decision referred by the Bombay High Court in the case of Chandrakant Baliram Vaidya (supra) would be applicable to the present case. Now, considering the document in question, in my opinion, when a deed can be treated as a "bond", the authorities below have rightly passed the impugned orders directing the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty according to Article 14 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Stamp Act. The authority can certainly charge for the same since the same is on higher side than the payment made by the petitioner under Article 6 of the Schedule-I of the Bombay Stamp Act and, therefore, the decision delivered by Madras High Court in the case of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Madras (supra), would be applicable to the present case. 8. As far as the decision relied upon by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner delivered in case of Premal Sanjaybhai Patel (supra) is concerned, in my opinion, the same would not be applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case since in the said case, the authority has not examined the deed in detail and applicability of provisions of schedule-I with regard to leviable of stamp duty and, therefore, it was held that the order was illegal. However, in the present case, both the authorities have examined the deed in detail and have come to the conclusion that the deed in question is a "bond" and not a "mortgage by deposit of title-deeds" as provided u/s. 58(f) of The Transfer of Property Act. 9. Considering the above factual as well as legal aspect, I do not find any merits in the present petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith.