Smt N S Geetha vs Sri B Raghuveer on 14 March, 2008

[Cites 4, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Smt N S Geetha vs Sri B Raghuveer on 14 March, 2008

Equivalent citations: AIR 2010 (NOC) 559 (KAR.), 2008 (6) AIR KAR R 194

Bench: H.G.Ramesh

 

WP. N0246/2008

xx 'rm: man mum or uuxrnu arr  4

Dana mu nm. 14% mm or liner! 2*3  '[1   

BEFORE   _

'rm: uoxmm IR.JU8'!'I¢I   4'    ''

BETWEEN:

1 SMTNSGEEPHA   5     
w/0 SR1 H R SUDARSHAN~PRASAvD * j  
AGED ABOUT saunas -- VV 5 t  % "
R/AT 140.500 3:29 Mair» ~  % 
em BLOCK.vBSKf3RD=:STAGE ~
BANGALORE 3%,, _ . p 

(BY sR1v:KRAisi,::Iiv. PGR  L  
SR1 H    

AND:

1 SR] B RAGHUVi§IER , 5 V 
s/<3 LATE vasunnvrs Aemma
AC;3EB_ABOlﬂ'.,60 ms
 - ._ .§:,M'rVV:eo,V23? 4?}-!...MA'1N
 . V CANARA BANK comm
A  'NAGARABHAW ROAD
__3Arz(:e..1,0RE.72

2 'STATE 0F----_KARN&TAKA
raw. BY we SECRETARY
 Rsvmus Damn,
A .. VVIDHANA sounm
 V U-RAMBEDKAR vasom
 *BA;NGALORE1  szEsPom3E:N'rs

   V VV(V13V'} sm mwuuama unum, ADV. FOR R1)

 '. THIS WRIT PE'!'!'I'iON FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSITTUHON OF INDEA PRAYING T0 QUASH
THE ORDER PASSED IN EJ(.NO.l69'7/2007 UP. 15.12.2007 BY
THE HONBLE C11'? CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-28)
DIREUHNG PAYMENT OF DUTY AND PENALTY VIDE AN1'§EX.A.

wgrr gmmou No.g46z-gm_J8VV    ii N



WP. N0.246I2008

THIS Pii.'.'I'I'l'1ON comma or: FOR oapmes. mus 

THE comm' MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R

This writ petition by the awinst an interlocutory z$:'i'A {Aimcxure-A) passed by the Cotirt of the Additional in Execution Case N9. 1697 'impugned order, the the power under Act, 1957 Rs.73,788j; penalty on the 4_s¢ttlen3c§s;'1t 24.11.2000 (Am1cxum--B) 73 of the Arb1tra' um and ('the Arbitration Act').

and perused thc impugned ordm m ljjfsnncxtire' -A. V' 3. '1'hcquestionoflawthatfallsfom'detc1'Lni134wonh1 this petition is as to whether a setﬂcincnt ageemcnt _ 3 ..

W.P. NCL246/2008

effected as per Section 73 of the Arbitration attracts duty under the pmvisiens of the Stamp "

It is stated that the parties had ﬁt}; settlement relating to a certain' Conciiiator and a" V Arbitration Act. If it F74 r/w Section 30(4) of the scttiemm:

under the mm. it attracts duty under to the stamp Act. It

--visﬁv1e}ev:é:zit__i'£n 74 of the Arbitration Act A V £51! ,1£1;£. !£...t.!_'1.£ '" '.-:'LL5;.9;.£ 31111.2.-LI' substance of the dispute rendered by an arbitml tribunal under Section 30.' (Underlinhlg supplied) \l\*\/

- 4 _ VLF. N0.246]2008 Section 30(4) of the Arbitration Act statues that, status and cﬁect as any other A M 2 '4 4'

4. In my opinicm, a ' per Section 73 of the to be an arbitml ilave the same status ward in View of 74 my cha1gmb1;a in the schedule to the Stamp 'm. for the petitioner 'V settlement agmemcnt at treated as an arbﬁw award, the xtqttxe Bf duty and penalty is correct.

' of the above, I am no legal immity in ':"jt;x":::-irI1p1xg11ed order to warrant interference by this However, on payment of duty and penalty by ttlepetitioneraxldaﬁcrtheoourtbelowscxidstlle WW/'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court