Somebody has handed you a form and told you to give an indemnity bond. Almost nobody reads it, because it looks like a formality and everyone is in a hurry. It is not a formality. It is a contract in which you agree to carry somebody else’s loss, and the three clauses most people never ask about — what it covers, whether it is capped, and how long it lasts — decide whether you have signed a manageable obligation or an open-ended one.
Section 124, Indian Contract Act, 1872 — “Contract of indemnity” defined.
A contract by which one party promises to save the other from loss caused to him by the conduct of the promisor himself, or by the conduct of any other person, is called a “contract of indemnity”.
Two things in that sentence do the work. The first is save the other from loss — the subject of an indemnity is loss, not performance. You are not promising to do the thing; you are promising that if it goes wrong, the cost lands on you. The second is or by the conduct of any other person — the loss need not be caused by you at all. That is why an indemnity can cover a claim by a stranger who turns up two years later.
In everyday life the bond is almost never something you wanted. A bank will not release a balance, a company will not issue a duplicate share certificate, an RTO will not transfer a vehicle, a housing society will not act on a transfer, and each of them says the same thing: give us an indemnity bond. What they are doing is entirely rational. They are being asked to act on incomplete proof, and the bond is what lets them act while putting the risk of being wrong back on the person who wants the action.
Understanding that is the whole of the practical advice on this page. The institution is buying protection from you. Your job is to give it exactly as much protection as the situation needs, and not one rupee more.
These two are used interchangeably in ordinary speech and they are not the same thing at all. The quickest test is to count the people.
Section 126, Indian Contract Act, 1872 — “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”.
And the extent of what a surety takes on is stated in one line:
Section 128 — Surety’s liability.
The liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided by the contract.
| Indemnity (s.124) | Guarantee (s.126) | |
|---|---|---|
| People involved | Two — indemnifier and indemnified | Three — surety, principal debtor, creditor |
| Nature of liability | Primary and independent | Secondary — it arises on the principal debtor’s default |
| What is being answered for | A loss | Another person’s obligation |
| Extent | Whatever the bond defines, capped or uncapped | Co-extensive with the principal debtor, unless the contract says otherwise |
| Typical use | Duplicate documents, claim settlement, transfers, employment | Loans, tenancies, bail, performance of a contract by somebody else |
The practical consequence is about who you can be pursued by, and when. A guarantor can usually say “go to the principal debtor first” only if the contract gives him that; under Section 128 the default position is co-extensive liability. An indemnifier has no principal debtor to point to at all — the liability is his own from the start. If you are being asked to sign something and you want to know how exposed you are, that is the first thing to work out.
If you are on the receiving end of an indemnity, the Act tells you what you are entitled to claim. Section 125 deals with the rights of the indemnity-holder when sued, and it covers three heads.
Two things follow from that wording and both are worth building into the bond. The first is that costs are recoverable, but conditionally — on prudence or authority. If you are the indemnified party, the safe course is to tell the indemnifier what you propose to do and get it in writing, because authority removes the argument. The second is that the section is expressed in terms of being sued. Losses that arise without any suit — a regulatory penalty, a write-off, a refund you had to make — are better covered by saying so expressly in the bond than by relying on the section.
Here is the question that decides whether an indemnity is genuinely useful: can you call on it before the loss has actually come out of your pocket?
Read literally, Section 125 speaks of sums the indemnity-holder “may be compelled to pay”, and for many years there was an argument that he had to pay first and claim afterwards. That reading would make indemnities nearly worthless to anybody who could not afford the loss in the first place — which is most people who are asked to give or take one.
Gajanan Moreshwar Parelkar v. Moreshwar Madan Mantri — Bombay High Court, Chagla J, 1942.
The Court held that Sections 124 and 125 of the Contract Act are not exhaustive of the law of indemnity, and that the courts in India would apply the same equitable principles that the courts in England do. If the indemnified has incurred a liability and that liability is absolute, he is entitled to call upon the indemnifier to save him from that liability and to pay it off. He is not required to first discharge the liability out of his own pocket and then sue on the indemnity.
That is the difference between a promise that helps and a promise that arrives too late. It also changes how a sensible bond is drafted: if the principle is available anyway, saying so expressly — that the indemnifier shall pay or discharge the liability on demand once it has become absolute — removes any argument about it and costs nothing.
Four documents that turn up in the same situations, doing four different jobs. Institutions mix the names up constantly, so read the operative sentence rather than the heading.
| Document | What it actually does | Operative words | Sworn? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indemnity bond | Promises to bear a loss if it happens | “I shall indemnify and keep indemnified…” | No — usually notarised |
| Undertaking | Promises to do or not do something | “I undertake that I shall…” | No |
| Affidavit | States facts on oath | “I solemnly affirm and state…” | Yes — sworn |
| Surety bond | Answers for another person’s default | “I stand surety for…” | No |
The distinction that matters most in practice is between the affidavit and the bond, because they are usually asked for together and people assume one covers the other. It does not. An affidavit is your sworn account of what happened — a false one exposes you to consequences for a false statement on oath, but it does not pay anybody. The bond is what pays.
An indemnity is a contract, and a contract with an unlawful object is void. Section 23 of the Contract Act makes the consideration or object of an agreement unlawful where it is forbidden by law, would defeat the provisions of any law, is fraudulent, involves injury to the person or property of another, or is regarded by a court as immoral or opposed to public policy.
The everyday version of this is somebody asking for a bond that says “I take full responsibility” for an act that is not permitted in the first place — a transfer that needs a sanction nobody obtained, a use of premises that the licence does not allow, a claim that both sides know is not the claimant’s. Signing does not transfer the exposure. It creates a document that records, in your own handwriting, that you knew.
Almost every indemnity bond we draft falls into one of these.
Order an indemnity bond — free, pay after work
This is the commonest reason anybody reads about indemnity bonds, and it is usually handled badly — not because it is difficult, but because people do the steps in the wrong order.
What an institution normally wants is a set, and each item in the set does a different job:
Two practical points. First, ask the institution for its own format before anything is drafted; many have one, and a bond in their format is approved in a day while a better-drafted bond in your format can sit for weeks. Second, do not sign a bond that covers “all claims of any nature whatsoever” when what you actually lost was a single certificate with a number on it. Name the certificate.
When somebody dies without a will and the family needs to get at a bank balance or a shareholding, there are two routes and the difference is money and months.
| Indemnity bond route | Succession certificate route | |
|---|---|---|
| Decided by | The institution, as a commercial risk decision | A civil court |
| Usual trigger | Amount within what the institution settles administratively, no dispute in the family | Larger amounts, a dispute, or the institution insists |
| Typical time | Weeks | Months, sometimes considerably longer |
| What it settles | Nothing about ownership — it protects the institution | Who is entitled to receive, as against the world |
| Also needs | Death certificate, heirs’ consent, sureties | Court process, valuation, court fee |
Notice the fourth row. An indemnity bond does not decide who inherits. It lets the institution pay somebody while keeping its own position safe. If the family is not in agreement, the bond route is not a shortcut — it is a way of moving the dispute from the bank to the family, usually onto whoever signed.
Families are regularly surprised that a nomination does not settle the question, and the surprise is expensive because it usually arrives after somebody has already been told they will receive the money.
Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar — Supreme Court of India, decided 14 December 2023.
The Court held that a nominee does not become the absolute owner of the securities on the death of the holder. The nomination provisions are a mechanism for the company to deal with a single person and obtain a valid discharge; they do not displace the law of succession, and they do not operate as a third mode of succession alongside testamentary and intestate succession.
The same logic runs through bank deposits: a nomination tells the institution whom it may safely pay, not who owns the money. The nominee receives it and holds it for those entitled under succession law.
Which is precisely why an indemnity bond is asked for even from a nominee. The institution is protecting itself against the heirs, not against the nominee. And it is why, if you are the nominee signing such a bond, you should understand that you may be indemnifying the bank against a claim by your own family.
A bond given to an employer raises two separate questions and they need separating.
The first is whether the employer can recover a genuine cost. Where an employer has actually spent money on specialised training, certification or relocation, a bond requiring proportionate repayment if the employee leaves within a stated period is an ordinary commercial arrangement. Section 74 of the Contract Act is the boundary: where a sum is named in the contract as payable on breach, the party complaining is entitled to reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named. The figure in the bond is therefore a ceiling, not an automatic entitlement, and an employer claiming it still has to show what it actually lost.
The second question is whether the bond is really a restraint on working elsewhere dressed up as a cost recovery. That runs into Section 27, and we have dealt with both provisions, with the leading cases, in the NDA and non-compete guide. There is no purpose in repeating it here.
Vehicle files generate indemnity bonds more often than almost anything else, because the paper trail breaks so easily — a lost registration certificate, a seller who cannot be traced, a transfer never completed by a previous buyer, a hypothecation that was repaid but never removed from the record, or a vehicle inherited without any paperwork at all.
In each of those the authority is being asked to change an official record on incomplete proof, and the bond is what makes that acceptable. Three points are worth knowing before you sign one.
A bond is short. That is exactly why each line carries weight.
Of everything on this page, this is the clause that most often saves somebody real money, and it is the clause almost nobody raises — because the form arrived pre-printed and asking to change a pre-printed form feels like making trouble.
An uncapped indemnity is a personal liability of unknown size and unknown duration. Nothing about the situation usually requires that. If a duplicate share certificate is being issued, the institution’s exposure is the value of those shares. If a bank is releasing a balance, the exposure is that balance and interest. A cap tied to the amount genuinely at stake gives the institution everything it actually needs.
Ask for three things together and you will usually get at least two: a cap in a stated figure, an end date or an ending event, and a limit to the specific transaction rather than all dealings. If the institution will not cap the amount, narrowing what is covered achieves much of the same result.
Many institutions want one or two sureties alongside the indemnifier. The criteria are set by the institution, not by law, but the pattern is consistent: somebody solvent, traceable and unconnected with the claim.
In practice that means a person who can show income or assets — an income-tax return, a salary certificate, a property document — along with their own identity and address proof, and who is not himself a claimant to the same money. Some institutions require a surety who is an account holder with them; some want two; some want a specified minimum income.
The reason to check this before the bond is drawn rather than after is simple arithmetic: a bond rejected because the surety was not acceptable has to be redrawn, re-stamped and re-executed. That is the single commonest avoidable delay on this job, and one question at the counter prevents it.
A bond is a chargeable instrument, and the consequence of getting it wrong is not a small fine.
An instrument that is not duly stamped cannot be admitted in evidence, acted upon, registered or authenticated — so an unstamped bond is a promise that cannot be enforced at the moment you need to enforce it. The defect is generally curable on payment of the duty and a penalty of up to ten times the deficiency, which is a painful way to discover a stamping question.
The whole of this — the duty, the timing rule that the instrument must be stamped before or at the time of execution, the ten-times penalty, and the one instrument that can never be cured — is set out in our e-stamp paper guide. We stamp the bond correctly as part of this service, and you see the certificate.
Two different questions that are often confused.
Notarisation is attestation by a notary. It is what most institutions actually want on an indemnity bond, it is quick, and it adds a layer of proof that the person who signed is the person named. We do it through our notary attestation service and it is usually the same visit.
Registration is a different requirement altogether, governed by the Registration Act, 1908, and it bites where a document creates or declares a right, title or interest in immovable property of the prescribed value. An ordinary indemnity bond does none of that and is not registrable. If your bond does touch immovable property — say it is being given as part of a property arrangement — tell us, because then registration genuinely has to be considered.
People assume that an old bond is a dead bond. It usually is not, and the reason is in the Limitation Act.
Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 83 of the Schedule.
For compensation for breach of a promise to indemnify: the period of limitation is three years, and time begins to run when the plaintiff is actually damnified.
Time runs from the loss, not from the date of the document. A bond signed in 2019 against a claim that lands in 2026 is not stale; the three years begin when the loss actually falls on the indemnified party.
This cuts both ways and it is worth understanding in both directions. If you are taking a bond, you have more time than you think. If you are giving one, your exposure is longer than the date on the paper suggests — which is the strongest practical argument for the duration clause that so few people ask for.
Where the person giving the bond lives abroad, the document itself is no different; what changes is how it is executed and proved.
The usual requirement is that the bond be executed and attested in a way the receiving institution accepts — commonly attestation at an Indian Mission, or the apostille or legalisation route depending on the country. The attestation chain and which countries fall on which side of it are set out in our visa affidavit and attestation guide.
Confirm the requirement with the institution in writing before anything is signed. A bond attested the wrong way is not a small correction — it is a second round trip through a foreign office, and it is usually the step that costs a family a month.
A straightforward indemnity bond is a same-day job once we know what the institution wants. The time goes into the questions before the drafting: what exactly is being indemnified, what the institution’s own format requires, who the sureties will be and whether they qualify.
| What | Paid to | Typical timing |
|---|---|---|
| Drafting, from ₹700 | Us, after the work is done | Same day for an ordinary bond |
| Stamp duty on the bond | The State, through the e-stamp certificate | Before execution — same day |
| Notarial fee | The notary | Same visit |
| Attestation abroad, where applicable | Mission or apostille authority | Weeks — plan around it |
We do not mark up stamp duty or notarial charges. Nothing is payable in advance — placing the order is free, we call you to confirm exactly what the institution has asked for, and payment comes after the work is done.
Those two answers decide the wording, the stamp and whether you need a surety. Send us their letter or form on WhatsApp and we will tell you what it actually commits you to before you sign it.
Two doors, both free. Clients search a factual directory of enrolled advocates. Advocates apply to be listed on it — no fee, no commission, nothing paid in either direction.
Search Bar Council enrolled advocates by what your matter is about, by court, or by city. Searching and sending a request are both free.
Enrolled advocates anywhere in India can apply to be listed. Your entry is published only after we verify your enrolment number with your State Bar Council.
This directory carries no ratings, no reviews, no rankings and no fees — only the factual particulars the Bar Council of India permits, published at each advocate's own request. Browse the network · Terms for Advocates