Karnataka High Court
M/S.Sovereign Developers And ... vs M/S. Krishil Capital Holdings Pvt.Ltd. on 14 May, 2015
Bench: Anand Byrareddy, G.Narendar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MAY, 2015
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
WRIT PETITION No.18598/2015 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/s.Sovereign Developers and
Infrastructure Ltd.,
A company incorporated under
the provisions of Companies Act, 1956
Having its Corporate Office at No.16,
2nd and 3rd Floors, S.D.Complex,
Jaladarshini Layout, New BEL Road,
Bengaluru - 560 054.
Represented by its Managing Director. ...Petitioner
(By Shri Harish Kumar.M.S., Advocate)
AND:
M/s. Krishil Capital Holdings Pvt.Ltd.,
A Company incorporated under
the provisions of Companies Act, 1956
2
Having its registered office at
No.547/4-5, 1st Floor,
ESSAR Mansion,
R.V.Road, Basavanagudi,
Bengaluru - 560 004. ... Respondent
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order
dated 09.04.2015 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal of
Shri Justice Ajit.J.Gunjal Sole Arbitrator at Arbitration
Center - Karnataka (Domestic and International),
Bengaluru in the matter of AC No.71/2014 rejecting the
I.A. filed by the petitioner under Sections 33 and 34 of the
Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 seeking impounding of the
Instrument being an MOU dated 02.09.2009 vide Annexure
- J.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing,
this day, ANAND BYRAREDDY, J., made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is before this Court in the following circumstances:
Petitioner is said to be a developer of land and the land owners of land bearing Sy.No.511 of Kalkere 3 Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk measuring 04 acres and 32 guntas along with 24 guntas of kharab land and entered with an agreement to develop the land in question with the respondent who earlier had entered into an agreement with the land owners to develop the land in question jointly. The said document was registered and a stamp duty of Rs.14,00,100/- was paid on the said Instrument.
3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner was heard at length, the petitioner seeks that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner, that stamp duty was attracted on a document styled as a Memorandum of Understanding, which is pursuant to a Joint Development Agreement and a Supplemental Joint Development Agreement, contending that it attracts stamp duty under Article 5(f) of the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. However, the 4 learned Arbitrator vide paragraphs no.11, 12 and 17 of the Order dated 09th April, 2015, which is at Annexure
- 'J' to the petition, has rejected the claim by a reasoned order.
4. We are not inclined to interfere as the reasoning is sound. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the question be left open as it is possible that the question could be raised even in an appeal under Section 59 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. Therefore, keeping open the question, which may be available to the petitioner, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE dh