Case: M/S DHARMARATNAKARA RAI BAHADUR ARCOT NARAINSWAMY  MUDALIAR CHATTRAM &amp; OTHER  CHARITIES &amp; ORS Vs. M/S BHASKAR RAJU &amp; BROTHERS  &amp; ORS

4. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under:5. The appellant No.1 is a registered Charitable Trust. Rest of the appellants are Trustees of the appellant No.1 – Trust. The appellant No.1 – Trust desired to develop the land owned by it and construct a multi-purpose community hall with office complex6. As such, the respondent No.1 offered to develop the said property and also to renovate the Samadhi of the founder of the Trust existing on the said piece of land. Negotiations were held between the appellant No.1 – Trust and the respondent No.17. As an outcome of the negotiations, a lease deed was executed between the appellant No.1 -Trust and the respondent No.1 – lessee for a period of 38 years. As per the said lease deed, the respondent No.1 – lessee was required to pay an amount of Rs.55,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty five lakh only) as an interest free deposit, which was to be refunded to it at the end of the period of 38 years, if the lease was not extended between the parties. As per the terms of the said lease deed, a certain monthly ground rent was also required to be paid by the respondent No.1 – lessee to the appellant No.1 -Trust. As per the said lease deed, the respondent No.1 – lessee was to construct a multi-purpose auditorium with minimum seating capacity of one thousand persons. The said auditorium was to be used for marriages, etc. together with dining hall, kitchen, guest rooms, etc. The respondent No.1 – lessee had also undertaken to obtain vacant possession of property mentioned in Schedule B subject to all co-operations being extended to it, by the lessor for ejectment of the existing tenants of the lessor. The said lease deed was executed on 31.5.1996 on the basis of the resolution of the appellant No.1 – Trust dated 30.4.19968. A subsequent lease deed dated 12.3.1997 came to be executed between the appellant No.1 and the respondent No.1. Most of the terms and conditions in the subsequent/fresh lease deed dated 12.3.1997 are identical with the terms and conditions as are found in the first lease deed dated 31.5.19969. It appears, that during the period between 1997 till 2000, there was not much progress in the development of the said project. It further appears that in the year 2008 certain re-negotiations took place between the appellants and the respondents. However, the same failed to materialize. It is the case of the appellants, that except paying initial amount of Rs.25 lakhs towards the security deposit, the balance amount towards the security deposit was not paid by the respondents. It was also the case of the appellants that the respondents were trying to interfere with the possession of the trust property in collusion with one of the trustees. In this background, the appellant – Trust filed Original Suit being O.S. No.8952 of 2010 before the City Civil Court at Bangalore. In the said suit, it was also contended on behalf of the appellants that the respondent No.1 – lessee had also desecrated the Samadhi of the founder of the Trust and had damaged part of it. It was further contended that, the respondent No.1 – lessee, in collusion with the respondent No.4, was trying to get a fresh lease deed executed illegally. The following prayers were made in the said suit:a. Decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 1 to 3, their agents, servants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 1 st Plaintiff Trust over the A schedule propertyb. Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 1 to 4 from entering into, executing or registering any lease deed or other document transaction concerning the A schedule property or any portion of itc. Decree granting of costs of the case and such other relief/reliefs as the Court may deem fit in the circumstances10. The City Civil Court at Bangalore, granted an interim order by directing maintaining of status quo over the Schedule property in the said suit. The suit was contested by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by filing written statement11. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, after participating in the suit proceedings for almost a period of about two years and three months, issued a notice to the appellants on 6.9.2013 thereby, invoking arbitration clause in the lease deed dated 31.5.1996 and 12.3.1997. On 11.10.2013, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act before the High Court of Karnataka. On being served with the notice, the appellants entered their appearance and filed their statement of objections on 2.6.2014 thereby, praying for dismissal of the petition on various grounds12. Since it was the basic contention of the appellants, that the lease deed dated 12.3.1997 being insufficiently stamped had to be mandatorily impounded under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and it could not be relied upon unless proper duty and penalty was paid, the single judge of the Karnataka High Court referred the matter to the Registrar (Judicial) for determination of the said issue. The Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Karnataka by a detailed report dated 25.9.2014 held, that the document in question was lease deed and not an agreement to lease and therefore, directed the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty of Rs. 1,01,56,388 /- (Rupees One crore One lakh Fifty-Six thousand Three hundred and Eighty-Eight only)13. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their objections to the report of the Registrar (Judicial). The High Court of Karnataka without consideration of the report of the Registrar (Judicial) passed the impugned order thereby, allowing the petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and invoking power under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, appointed an Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the appellants and the respondents. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants are before this Court.

Court's reasoning:
18. 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 1997 executed/entered into between the parties was a lease deed and not an agreement to lease and passed an order directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty of Rs. 1,01,56,388 /- (Rupees One crore One lakh Fifty-Six thousand Three hundred and Eighty- Eight only). It is also an admitted fact, that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not complied with the said directions and have not paid the deficit stamp duty and penalty19. The issue is no longer res integra. This Court in the case of SMS Tea Estates Private Limited vs. Chandmari Tea Company Private Limited (2011) 14 SCC 66 had occasion to consider the provisions which are in pari materia with the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 195720. It can thus clearly be seen, that this Court has in unequivocal terms held, that when a lease deed or any other instrument is relied upon as containing the arbitration agreement, the Court is required to consider at the outset, whether the document is properly stamped or not. It has been held, that even when an objection in that behalf is not raised, it is the duty of the Court to consider the issue. It has further been held, that if the Court comes to the conclusion, that the instrument is not properly stamped, it should be impounded and dealt with, in the manner specified in Section 38 of the Stamp Act, 1899. It has also been held, that the Court cannot act upon such a document or the arbitration clause therein. However, if the deficit duty and penalty is paid in the manner set out in Section 35 or Section 40 of the Stamp Act, 1899, the document can be acted upon or admitted in evidence. It is needless to state, that the provisions that fell for consideration before this Court are analogous with the provisions of Sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view, that in view of the law laid down in the case of SMS Tea Estates Private Limited (supra), that the lease deed containing the arbitration clause which is required to be duly stamped, was not sufficiently stamped and though the Registrar (Judicial) had directed the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty of Rs.1,01,56,388/- (Rupees One crore One lakh fifty-six thousand Three hundred and Eighty-eight only), the respondents failed to do so, the High Court has erred in relying on the said lease dated 12.3.199721. Though the appellants deserve to succeed only on the aforesaid question of law, we find, that even on equity the respondents are not entitled to any relief22. After lease deed was executed in the year 1996-1997, though the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have placed on record some settlement deeds with tenants executed in 1998, except one bald statement, that last of the tenants was evicted in the year 2010, nothing has been 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 present application before the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act. It is further to be noted, that 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 at Bangalore in O.S. No.8952 of 2010 at the earliest opportunity available. It appears, that the 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 deed23. It can thus clearly be seen, that the tenure of the lease deed was to be 38 years from the date of signing of the lease deed24. 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 years25. In that view of the matter, the submission made by Shri Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel for 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 12.3.199726. In that view of the matter, we find, that the High Court has totally erred in relying on the lease deed dated 12.3.1997, which was found to be insufficiently stamped and brushing aside the report of the Registrar (Judicial), when the respondents had failed to pay the insufficient stamp duty and penalty as determined by the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Karnataka.