Karnataka High Court

M/S. Skyline Construction And Housing ... vs M/S. Chawla Interbild Construction ... on 18 November, 2025

Author: S Vishwajith Shetty

Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty

                                              -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC:47631
                                                         WP No. 6936 of 2023
                                                    C/W WP No. 25308 of 2022

              HC-KAR



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

              BETWEEN:

              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.
                                                                 ...PETITIONER
              (BY SRI N. SHIVAKUMAR, ADV.,)
              AND:

Digitally     M/S. CHAWLA INTERBILD CONSTRUCTION
signed by
NANDINI M S   COMPANY PVT. LTD.,
Location:     A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
HIGH COURT
OF            THE COMPANIES ACT,
KARNATAKA     HAVING ITS OFFICE AT,
              NO.3, HOMELANDS,
              NO.55, HILL ROAD,
              BANDRA (WEST),
              MUMBAI - 400 050,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS
              MANAGING DIRECTOR.
                                                                ...RESPONDENT
              (BY SRI R.V. NAIK, ADV., FOR C/R)
                  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
                                -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC:47631
                                          WP No. 6936 of 2023
                                     C/W WP No. 25308 of 2022

 HC-KAR



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.

IN WP NO. 25308/2022:

BETWEEN:

1.   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
                                              ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI N. SHIVAKUMAR, ADV.)

AND:

1.   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.

2.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
     DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
     VIKASA SOUDHA
     BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.V. NAIK, ADV., FOR R-1;
V/O DTD 16.12.2022, SMT. ANITHA H.R, HCGP FOR R-2)

   THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
                                   -3-
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC:47631
                                              WP No. 6936 of 2023
                                         C/W WP No. 25308 of 2022

HC-KAR



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.

    THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY


                             ORAL ORDER

1. 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.

2. 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

NC: 2025:KHC:47631

HC-KAR

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.

3. 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

NC: 2025:KHC:47631

HC-KAR

circumstances, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting IA

No.1.

4. 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.

5. 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

NC: 2025:KHC:47631

HC-KAR

jurisdictional Court with a prayer to execute the award passed

in AC No.12/2013, which is confirmed in AS No.116/2014.

6. 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:-

"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."

7. Under the circumstances, the Trial Court was fully

justified in holding that the award which is sought to be

NC: 2025:KHC:47631

HC-KAR

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.

8. 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