Karnataka High Court
Mrs S Manjula vs M/S Odm Media Services on 15 November, 2022
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 17015 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MRS S MANJULA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
W/O P SUDARSHAN
OCC AGRICULTURIST
R/A NO 1149 AECS LAYOUT C BLOCK
5TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS
KUNDAHALLI, BENGALURU 560057
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJESWARA P N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S ODM MEDIA SERVICES
INDIA PVT LTD
NO 705 7TH FLOOR
ALSO AT 802, 8TH FLOOR AND 1008
10TH FLOOR, BARTON CENTRE
M G ROAD, BENGALURU 560001
2. MR ARUN KUMAR
S/O BHEEMANAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
DIRECTOR
ODM MEDIA AND SERVICES (I) PVT LTD
AND DISPLAY SYSTEMS INDIA
PRIVATE LIMITED
NO 802 8TH FLOOR BARTON CENTRE
-2-
M G ROAD, BENGALURU 560001
ALSO R/AT NO L 101 I FLOOR
'VOMEGHA' BRIGADE GATEWAY
MALLESWARAM WEST
BENGALURU 560055
AND ALSO AT NO 36 FLAT NO 102
2ND FLOOR KUSHI MANSION
16TH MAIN M C LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU 560004
3. MR PAVIN SOMAPPA PONANNA
S/O SOMAPPA A DEVAIAH,
MAJOR,
DIRECTOR
ODM MEDIA AND SERVICES (I) PVT LTD
AND DISPLAY SYSTEMS INDIA
PRIVATE LIMITED
NO 802 8TH FLOOR BARTON
CENTRE M G ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001
ALSO AT NO 14 G FLOOR,
18TH CROSS VII MAIN
AECS LAYOUT, SANJAYA NAGAR,
BENGALURU 560094
4. M/S DISPLAY SYSTEM INDIA PVT LTD
NO 802 8TH FLOOR BARTON
CENTRE M G ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
5. SIR M VISVESVARAYYA
COOOPERATIVE BANK LTD
NO 109 SHANKARMUTT ROAD,
SHANKARAPURAM,
BENGALURU 560004
-3-
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL MANAGER
ALSO HAVING A BRANCH AT
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU 560040
6. MR T PRAMOD KUMAR
S/O GOVINDASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
NO 1152 22ND CROSS
BSK II STAGE,
BENGALURU 560070
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS IN OS.NO.1314/2013 ON THE FILE OF HONBLE
IV ASCJ, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU;
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.07.2022 (ANNEXURE-A)
PASSED IN OS.NO.1314/2013 PASSED BY THE HONBLE IV
ASCJ, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER
SECTION 37(2) OF THE KARNATAKA STAMP ACT,1957
READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 1908.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
-4-
ORDER
This petition is by the plaintiff in O.S.No.1314/2013 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short, 'the civil Court'). The petitioner has impugned the civil Court's order dated 26.07.2022, and the civil Court by this order has rejected the petitioner's application under Section 37(2) of the Karnataka Stamp Act 1957 (for short, 'the Act 1957') to refer the document in question viz., the agreement of sale dated 06.01.2011 for adjudication for deficit stamp duty.
Sri. Rajeswara P.N., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in terms of the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in United Precision Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. KIOCL Ltd.1, a Court has to impound an insufficiently stamped and impose the penalty of ten times the deficit. However, the concerned party has a choice to pay the deficit and penalty and in such event, the impounding gets diluted and the Court is required to 1 ILR 2016 KAR 1707 -5- dispatch an authenticated copy of the document along with the deficit duty and penalty to the concerned who must consider the question of penalty under Section 38 of the Act 1957. On the other hand, if the concerned chooses not to pay the amount, the impounding will continue and will not be available for admission in evidence and as such, the document will have to be sent to the Deputy Commissioner as provided under Section 37(2) of the Act 1957 and the concerned will have to proceed in terms of Section 39 of the Act 1957 and send back the document upon adjudication.
Sri. Rajeswara P.N. further submits that the civil Court, while sending the document under Section 37(2) of the Act 1957, when the party chooses not to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty, must set a timeframe and if the Certificate under Section 39 of the Act 1957 is not sent within time, the suit must be dismissed to be revived as and when a Certificate is accordingly received. The learned counsel in support of these submissions relies upon paragraph Nos.11 and 12 in the aforesaid judgment which reads as under:
-6-
"In that regard, if the instrument concerned is the document without which the suit cannot be proceeded with as in the instance case, the course to be adopted will have to be in the manner indicated in the case of PETETI SUBBA RAO (supra) i.e., the Court sending it to the Deputy Commissioner will set a time frame and if it receives the certificate and the order of the Deputy Commissioner, it will proceed with the suit. If within the time frame the instrument is not received, it may thereafter dismiss the suit and revive it as and when the certificate is received subsequently."
It is obvious from the reading of the impugned order that the civil Court has not considered the aforesaid proposition. This Court, in view of the fact that the suit is pending from the year 2013 and service of notice to the respondents could consume time and it would be permissible for the civil Court to review its order because it has not considered a proposition exposited by this Court, the petition must be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an application for review and calling upon the civil Court to consider such application and pass suitable orders within a period of fifteen [15] days from the date the application is filed after due opportunity to the contesting respondents - defendants.
-7-
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE RB