Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.67 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Sms Tea Estates P.Ltd vs M/S Chandmari Tea Co.P.Ltd on 20 July, 2011

Dodballapur Integrated Textile Park ... vs Mrs Premalatha G Jain on 16 March, 2023

32.Garware [Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. Coastal Marine Constructions & Engg. Ltd., (2019) 9 SCC 209 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 324] judgment has followed the judgment in SMS Tea Estates [SMS Tea Estates (P) Ltd. v. Chandmari Tea Co. (P) Ltd., (2011) 14 SCC 66 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 777] . The counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on para 22 of the judgment to contend that the arbitration clause would be non-existent in 3 (2021) 4 SCC 379 20 law, and unenforceable, till stamp duty is adjudicated and paid on the substantive contract. We hold that this finding is erroneous, and does not lay down the correct position in law.
Karnataka High Court Cites 69 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Mr. Satyanarayana vs M/S Terrasol on 5 November, 2018

In the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SMS TEA ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. CHANDMARI TEA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED reported in (2011)14 SCC 66 very hearing relied upon by Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondents, to buttress his argument that where an arbitration agreement is pressed into service and the adequacy of stamp duty paid on the said agreement is to be decided at the first instance and said agreement cannot be acted upon, this court is of the considered view that it would apt and appropriate to 24 extract the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment. It has been held by Apex Court:
Karnataka High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

Mr Shreans Daga vs I B M India Private Limited on 15 October, 2020

11. It is also relevant to state that the Apex Court in the cases of SMS Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd., and Garware Wall Ropes Ltd., supra has held that before acting upon an arbitration clause in an agreement, it is necessary that 12 this Court comes to the conclusion that the agreement is sufficiently stamped. In this context, it is relevant to state that by its order dated 19.03.2020, this Court permitted the petitioners to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty to the Authorities and obtain the requisite receipt and certificate in this regard evidencing payment by the petitioners. It is not in dispute that pursuant thereto, petitioners paid the deficit stamp duty and penalty and has produced the requisite receipt and certificate issued by the Authorities. The aforesaid order dated 19.03.2020 passed by this Court has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the parties including the respondent. It follows therefrom that the said order dated 19.03.2020, payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty by the petitioners and issuance of certificate and receipt by the Authorities evidencing such payment is sufficient compliance of the procedure indicated by the Apex Court in SMS Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd., and Garware Wall Ropes Ltd., cases supra.
Karnataka High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document

Shri Manjunath K vs Shri H R Ravichandra on 3 April, 2024

NC: 2024:KHC:13751 WP No. 14182 of 2020 unstamped document is yet enforceable in law or that it is not enforceable in law. It is another matter that the parties may act upon it. Goods or services may change hands, for instance, under a document, which may be otherwise exigible to stamp duty. What is, however, relevant is that the State will not extend its protection, by appropriate sanctions. The rights, which would otherwise have been available, had the agreement been stamped, would remain frozen or rather they would not exist. We are further reinforced in our view, therefore, that the views expressed by this Court in Garware [Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. Coastal Marine Constructions & Engg. Ltd., (2019) 9 SCC 209 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 324] in para 22, following SMS Tea Estates [SMS Tea Estates (P) Ltd. v. Chandmari Tea Co. (P) Ltd., (2011) 14 SCC 66 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 777] , represent the correct position in law."
Karnataka High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr Jugraj Sethia vs Mr Yakub S Erinpurwala on 20 May, 2025

"5. In the light of the contentions put forth, I have heard the learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. With regard to the issue relating to the document if being insufficiently stamped the same arising for consideration in relation to the arbitration clause only on the appropriate stamp duty being paid, the learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the decision in the case of SMS Tea Estates Private Limited Vs. Chandmari Tea Company Private Limited reported in (2011) 14 SCC 66. Having noticed the said decision insofar as the issue enunciated therein there could be no dispute. In that light what is necessary to be taken note at the outset, is as to whether the document in issue is liable to be impounded as being insufficiently stamped and any direction is necessary to be issued to pay the deficit stamp duty.
Karnataka High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri V Vinod D Kamath vs Sri Preeth Hegde on 11 June, 2018

The decision in the case of SMS TEA ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED (supra) relating to the issues concerning W.A.No.1170/2018 -5- unstamped and unregistered instrument does not make out a case that if any such question is raised in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, the same is required to be determined as a preliminary issue. Needless to observe that all other aspects, including the objections of the appellant, remain open to be raised at the time of hearing of the application.
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri. Malchira C. Nanaiah vs M/S Pathak Developers Pvt Ltd., on 5 October, 2020

9. The legal position with regard to acting upon an arbitration agreement/clause contained in an insufficiently stamped document only after payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty is no longer res-integra in the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SMS Tea Estates case and Garware Wall Ropes supra. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, particularly, having regard to the joint submission and consent given by both sides to proceed with the appointment of the sole Arbitrator by imposing necessary conditions with regard to payment of stamp duty and penalty on the sale agreement by the petitioners on or before the first date of hearing before the sole Arbitrator, I deem it fit and proper to appoint a sole Arbitrator to enter upon reference and adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - S R Kumar - Full Document

Suraj Homes Private Limited vs Mr.G.Venkatarayappa on 30 November, 2020

Insofar as the contention urged by the respondents with regard to maintainability of the petition on the ground that the aforesaid Joint Development Agreement has not been registered and that consequently, having regard to the provisions contained in Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, the dispute cannot be 6 referred to Arbitration is concerned, the said question is no longer res integra in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in SMS Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd., vs. Chandmari Tea Company Pvt. Ltd., - (2011) 14 SCC 66. Accordingly, the said contention urged by the respondents cannot be accepted.
Karnataka High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document
1   2 Next