Sri G Narayanaswamy vs Sri K V Ravikumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 10408 Kant

                              1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                        BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

    WRIT PETITION NO.12646 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI G NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE N GOPAL MUDALE
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
RESIDING AT SHIVANANDA ASHRAMA
GURUKAR HANUMANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
KANAKAPURA TALUK 562117
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT

REPT BY GPA HOLDER
G N THULASI PRASAD
S/O G NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT NO.19, NIKSHITA NILAYA
GANESHA BLOCK
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT
BANGALORE-86.                      ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI S B TOTAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:
SRI K V RAVIKUMAR
S/O K G VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT GURUKAR
HANUMANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
                               2



NOW RESIDING AT C/O RAMAIAH BUILDING
SLN ROAD
KANAKAPURA TOWN 562117
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.               ...RESPONDENT

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
KANAKAPURA IN O.S. NO.331/2014 DTD 24.03.2022 ON
I.A.NO.2 TO PAY DEFICIT DUTY AND 10 TIMES PENALTY OF
RS.10,03,805/- VIDE ANNX-E AND ETC.,

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                       [[[[




                       ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed by the plaintiff

questioning the order impugned dated 24.03.2022

wherein the learned Judge on an application filed by

the plaintiff requesting to refer the suit agreement to

the District Registrar is rejected. Consequently the

learned Judge has determined the duty and penalty

payable on the insufficiently stamped document. This

order is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. Since the petitioner had filed an application

requesting the court to refer the suit agreement to the

authorities, in view of the defence set up by the

defendant that the suit agreement is insufficiently

stamped, I am of the view that no purpose will be

served in issuing notice to the respondent. The order

under challenge in impounding and determining the

stamp duty and consequent penalty is strictly in terms

of the principles laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench

of this court rendered in the case of United Precision

Engineers Pvt.Ltd. -vs- KIOCL Ltd.1

3. The petitioner had instituted a suit for specific

performance of the contract. The learned Judge on an

application found that the document is not sufficiently

stamped. In the judgment cited supra, the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court was of the view that once

the court finds that the instrument is not duly

stamped, then an obligation is cast on the court to

immediately impound the same and determine the

duty and penalty payable. In the judgment cited

ILR 2016 KAR 1707

supra, the court was also of the view that there is no

discretion but to impose penalty of ten times of the

deficit and permit the party to pay the same.

Therefore, the order under challenge would not

warrant interference in the hands of this court.

However, the trial court having impounded the

document and determined the penalty, the Court is

required to refer the document under Section 37(2) of

the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, as the power is still

vested with the Deputy Commissioner under Section

38 of the said Act to hold an enquiry and reduce the

penalty in the manner as provided therein.

With these observations, the writ petition stands

disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KNM/-