IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4832 of 2010 Date of decision : 16.12.2010 Daler Singh … Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh …Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Permod Kohli. Present: Mr.Aman Bahri, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Lisa Gill, Advocate for the respondent. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Permod Kohli, J. The licence of paid parking site-Idle Truck Parking, TPT, Area, Sector 26, Chandigarh was allotted in favour of the M/s Baba Nanak and Co.No.2323, Khamanoo, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab vide memo No.500 dated 18.5.2007. The allotment memo was followed by amended terms and conditions agreement duly executed between the parties on 19.3.2008 (Annexure P-2). It appears that certain disputes arose between the parties with regard to functioning of the paid parking. This petition has been filed by Daler Singh-petitioner claiming to be a partner of M/s Baba Nanak and Co. It is alleged that after serving a notice, the licence was determined. The petitioner has been served with a communication dated 12.1.2010 (Annexure P-6) asking to furnish a fresh licence deed duly executed on the requisite stamp papers in view of the objections raised by the Principal Accountant General (Audit), Punjab and Chandigarh regarding deficiency of stamp duty on the document already executed. The petitioner served a legal notice disputing the contention. However, the respondents issued another communication dated 4.2.2010 CWP No.4832 of 2010 (Annexure P-9) claiming an amount of Rs.1,75,426/- on account of interest on delayed payment. In response to the aforesaid communication, company claimed refund of security deposit and return of bank guarantee vide its communication dated 9.2.2010 (Annexure P-10). Respondents, however, finally replied to the legal notice of the petitioner and demanded certain amount on account of the deficiency of stamp duty and registration fee as also the interest on delayed payment vide impugned communication dated 15.2.2010 (Annexure P-12). These communications are under challenge in the present writ petition. Ms.Lisa Gill, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent has raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition in view of the existence of arbitration clause in the licence deed executed between the parties. The relevant clause in the licence deed reads as under:- “Arbitration:- All disputes and differences arising out or in any way touching upon this license deed, whatsoever, shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Commissioner. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on both the parties. The Provisions of Arbitration and Consolation Act, 1996, and Rules framed there under and any statutory modification/amendments thereof for the time being in force shall apply for such arbitration.” In view of the above mentioned arbitration clause, it is contended that this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the parties be left free to seek remedy under the Arbitration clause existing in the bilateral agreement between the parties. The contention of Ms.Gill, Advocate for the respondent is opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner on two counts; (i) that question of stamp duty 2 CWP No.4832 of 2010 cannot be determined by the Arbitrator. According to him, it is only the Collector who has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine/recover the amount on account of deficient stamp duty in terms of Sections 47-A and 31 of the Indian Stamp Act; (ii) the respondents are claiming the rights of the third party i.e. the Government for recovery of stamp duty which is beyond the purview of the arbitration clause. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Both the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are liable to be rejected for the reasons hereinafter; (i) The arbitration clause is vide enough to include all disputes touching upon the licence deed. Insofar the claim of interest on the delayed payments is concerned, it definitely falls within the purview of the arbitration clause. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Insofar as the second contention regarding deficiency of stamp duty for which the respondents have already recovered the amount from the petitioner, suffice it to say that this dispute also falls within the purview of the arbitration clause. Firstly, because all disputes and differences arising out or in any way touching upon license deed, fall within the ambit of clause 41. Secondly, assuming the respondents have made illegal recovery from the amounts payable to the petitioner, this itself is a dispute which can be determined and adjudicated upon by the Arbitrator and falls within the scope of the arbitration clause. Apart from the above, it has been noticed that petitioner’s company itself had sought resolution of the dispute through the arbitration vide its communication dated 3.2.2010 (Annexure P-8). Now the petitioner can not be permitted to plead that dispute is not referable to, or adjudicable by the Arbitrator Tribunal. It is also relevant to notice that even though the Collector is the final authority to determine the stamp duty under law, however, under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, every authority empowered 3 CWP No.4832 of 2010 to take evidence is entitled to impound document produced before it, is in its opinion stamp duty payable on instrument is deficient. It cannot be disputed that the Arbitrator Tribunal is an authority empowered to take evidence. In any case, even if the arguments of the petitioner is accepted at the most, it can be said to be un-warranted and illegal recovery by the respondents which itself is a dispute which falls within the purview of the arbitration clause and thus, arbitrator has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the parties to seek remedy under the provisions of the arbitration Act in view of the clause 21 of the agreement referred to above. ( Permod Kohli ) Judge 16.12.2010 sd 4