M/S DHARMARATNAKARA RAI BAHADUR ARCOT NARAINSWAMY MUDALIAR CHATTRAM & OTHER CHARITIES & ORS. versus M/S BHASKAR RAJU & BROTHERS & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 798 · Decided: 14-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SURYA KANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
798
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
M/S DHARMARATNAKARA RAI BAHADUR ARCOT
NARAINSWAMY MUDALIAR CHATTRAM & OTHER
CHARITIES & ORS.
v.
M/S BHASKAR RAJU & BROTHERS & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1599 of 2020)
FEBRUARY 14, 2020
[S. A. BOBDE, CJI, B. R. GAVAI AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957: ss.33 and 34 – If a lease deed is
neither registered nor sufficiently stamped as required under the
Act then the court cannot act upon such lease deed or arbitration
clause contained therein – If the instrument is not properly stamped,
it should be impounded and dealt with in manner specified in Stamp
Act – Arbitration.
Equity: Equitable relief, entitlement – Respondents taking self-
contradictory stand – Held: Not entitled to any relief.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Admittedly, both the lease deeds are neither
registered nor sufficiently stamped as required under the
Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. Admittedly, the Registrar (Judicial)
of the High Court of Karnataka had submitted a report to the
High Court pointing out, that the document of the year 1997
executed/entered into between the parties was a lease deed and
not an agreement to lease and passed an order directing
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty.
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not comply with said directions and
did not pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty. In view of the law
laid down in the case of SMS Tea Estates Private Limited, the
High Court erred in relying on the said lease dated 12.3.1997.
[Paras 18, 20][805 D-G]
2. Even on equity the respondents are not entitled to any
relief. After lease deed was executed though respondent Nos. 1
and 2 placed on record some settlement deeds with tenants
executed in 1998, except one bald statement, that last of the
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 798
798
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
799
tenants was evicted in the year 2010, nothing was placed on
record. It appears, that only after the appellants had filed a suit
for injunction against the respondents which was duly contested
by the respondents by filing written statement on 18.6.2011, the
respondents after participating in the suit proceedings for a period
of about 2 years and 3 months, filed the application before the
High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act. If in the
pursuit of the respondents, the lease deed dated 12.3.1997 was
legal and valid document and it could be relied on for referring
the dispute to arbitration in view of clause 36 thereof, nothing
precluded them from filing an application under Section 8 of the
Arbitration Act before the City Civil Court in the pending suit at
the earliest opportunity available. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are
taking self-contradictory stands. In the written statement before
the City Civil Court at Bangalore, they have admitted, that the
document was a lease deed, whereas before the High Court they
have taken a stand, that the document was an agreement for
developing the property after the property is made vacant by
evicting the tenants. The stand is also totally contrary to the terms
expressed in the lease deed. The tenure of the lease deed was to
be 38 years from the date of signing of the lease deed. A perusal
of the clauses of the lease deed dated 12.3.1997 would also reveal,
that the lessee had undertaken all the responsibility of obtaining
vacant possession of Schedule ‘B’ property and to secure vacant
possession by ejecting the unauthorised occupants. Responsibility
of sanctioning the building plans was also undertaken by the
respondents. It would further reveal, that it was also agreed
between the parties, that in the event of any of the tenants
approaching a court of law, such period of litigation shall not in
any manner affect the agreed tenure of the lease deed of 38 years.
In that view of the matter, the submission by the respondents,
that the agreement was to be registered only after all the tenants
were evicted and the building plans were sanctioned is not
supported by any of the terms in the lease deed dated 12.3.1997.
[Pars 21-25][808 E-H; 809 E-G]
SMS Tea Estates Private Limited v. Chandmari Tea
Company Private Limited (2011) 14 SCC 66 – relied
on.
M/S DHARMARATNAKARA RAI BAHADUR ARCOT NARAINSWAMY
MUDALIAR CHATTRAM v. M/S BHASKAR RAJU & BROTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
800
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
(2011) 14 SCC 66
relied on
Para 19
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1599
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2014 of the High Court
o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.