M/S. Skyline Construction and Housing Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S. Chawla Interbild Construction Company Pvt. Ltd.

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:47631 WP No. 6936 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25308 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 6936 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 25308 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) IN WP No. 6936/2023:

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S. SKYLINE CONSTRUCTION AND HOUSING PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.206 AND 207 2ND FLOOR, 7/28, SOPHIA S PLAZA ST.MARKS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 01 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. AVINASH PRABHU.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI N. SHIVAKUMAR, ADV.,)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

M/S. CHAWLA INTERBILD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, NO.3, HOMELANDS, NO.55, HILL ROAD, BANDRA (WEST), MUMBAI - 400 050, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI R.V. NAIK, ADV., FOR C/R)

¶15

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AD-INTERIM ORDER DTD 12.08.2022 (ANNX-K) PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:47631 WP No. 6936 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25308 of 2022

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

86TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT) BENGALURU (CCH-87) ON IA NO.2 IN EX.NO.45/2022 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER, AND DISMISS THE SAME.

¶20

IN WP NO. 25308/2022:

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

M/S. SKYLINE CONSTRUCTION AND HOUSING PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 206 AND 207 2nd FLOOR 7/28, SOPHIAS PLAZA ST. MARKS ROAD BENGALURU - 56001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. AVINASH PRABHU

¶23

...PETITIONER

¶24

(BY SRI N. SHIVAKUMAR, ADV.)

¶25

AND:

¶26

M/S. CHAWLA INTERBILD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT., HAVING ITS OFICE AT NO.3 HOMELANDS, NO.55, HILL ROAD BANDRA (WEST), MUMBAI - 400 050 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶27

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶28

...RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI R.V. NAIK, ADV., FOR R-1; V/O DTD 16.12.2022, SMT. ANITHA H.R, HCGP FOR R-2)

¶30

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47631 WP No. 6936 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25308 of 2022

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

DATED 28.07.2022 (ANNEXURE F) PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE 86TH ADDL CITY CIVIL JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT), BENGALURU (CCH-87), DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED BY THE PETITIONER/JUDGEMENT DEBTOR UNDER SECTION 33 AND 34 OF THE KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957.

¶34

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

These two writ petitions arise between the same parties and from the same proceedings and therefore, they are heard together and disposed off by this common order.

¶37

Respondent herein had filed Execution Case No.45/2022 before the Court of LXXXVI Additional City Civil Judge (Commercial Court), Bengaluru, for executing the award dated 31.07.2014 in AC No.12/2013 passed by the Sole Arbitrator, which was confirmed in AS No.116/2014. In the said proceedings, the judgment debtor had filed an application under Sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1957' for short), with a prayer to impound the award for the purpose of collecting the deficit stamp duty and penalty on the same. The said application was opposed by the decree holder by filing

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47631 WP No. 6936 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25308 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned dated 28.07.2022 rejected IA No.1 filed on behalf of the judgment debtor under Sections 33 and 34 of the Act of 1957 and being aggrieved by the said order, judgment debtor is before this Court in WP No.25308/2022. It appears that during the pendency of WP No.25308/2022, the Executing Court had proceeded further in the matter and also had passed attachment orders against movables and immovables of the judgment debtor and assailing the said orders on the ground that during the pendency of WP No.25308/2022, the Trial Court was not justified in proceeding further, the judgment debtor has approached this Court in WP No.6936/2023.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Article 11 of the Act of 1957 provides that an award not being on a reference made otherwise than by an order of the Court in the course of suit, is liable for payment of stamp duty. In the case on hand, the Arbitrator was not appointed on a reference by an order of the Court in the course of a suit and on the other hand, appointment of Arbitrator was under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Under the

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47631 WP No. 6936 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25308 of 2022

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

circumstances, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting IA No.1.

¶45

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent who has argued in support of the order impugned submits that matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Vijaya Bank Employees Housing Co-operative Society Limited vs. Mr. Thimme Gowda and others in WP No.20090/2016 disposed off on 28.04.2016. The Trial Court, having placed reliance on the said judgment, has rightly rejected IA No.1. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶46

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that in the present case, this Court had appointed an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the petitioner and respondent herein which arose out of a contract executed between the parties on 01.09.2006. The Arbitrator appointed by this Court in CMP No.112/2011 C/w CMP No.113/2011 by order dated 20.06.2013 has passed the award in AC No.12/2013 which was subsequently confirmed in AS No.116/2014. The decree holder has now filed Execution Case No.45/2022 before the

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:47631 WP No. 6936 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25308 of 2022

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

jurisdictional Court with a prayer to execute the award passed in AC No.12/2013, which is confirmed in AS No.116/2014.

¶50

The question whether an award passed by an Arbitrator appointed by this Court in a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is liable for payment of stamp duty, has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Vijaya Bank Employees Housing Co-operative Society Limited (supra) and in paragraph No.15 of the said order, it has been observed as follows:-

¶51

"15. The award in question having been passed pursuant to direction issued by this Court in CMP No.94/2012, it is to be held as an award passed pursuant to order of the Court and as such, it is held that award in question would squarely fall within the four corners of the words “by an order of the Court in the course of a suit” . Hence, the corresponding entry to Article 11 of the Karnataka Stamp Act is not attracted or in other words, the exception carved out in Article 11 is attracted or in other words, it is to be held that the award in question would not attract payment of stamp duty."

¶52

Under the circumstances, the Trial Court was fully justified in holding that the award which is sought to be

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:47631 WP No. 6936 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25308 of 2022

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

executed by the decree holder would not attract payment of stamp duty. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the said order, which calls for interference by this Court. Therefore, WP No.25308/2022 is liable to be dismissed.

¶56

So far as WP No.6936/2023 is concerned, the judgment debtor has questioned various orders passed by the Executing Court during the pendency of WP No.25308/2022 on the ground that the execution proceedings is initiated based on an award which is not properly stamped and the question of impounding the said award and collecting deficit stamp duty and penalty is subject matter of WP No.25308/2022, which is pending consideration before this Court and in the meanwhile, Executing Court should not have proceeded further.

¶57

In view of the order now passed in WP No.25308/2022, I am of the opinion that the prayers made by the judgment debtor in WP No.6936/2023 are liable to be rejected. Accordingly, WP No.6936/2023 and WP No.25308/2022 are dismissed.

¶58