M/S C.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs Satish Kumar Bachchani
2022 Latest Caselaw 2903 MP

                             1
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                              BEFORE
                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
                      ON THE 2nd OF MARCH, 2022

                ARBITRATION CASE No. 10 of 2020

         Between:-
         M/S C.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD. THR. THE
         MANAGING DIRECTOR RAKESH MALIK A/A
         182 ZONE I M.P. NAGAR BHOPAL (MADHYA
         PRADESH)

                                                     .....PETITIONER
         (BY SHRI ANIL LALA, ADVOCATE)

         AND

1.       SATISH KUMAR BACHCHANI S/O LATE SHRI
         JHAMANDAS     BACHCHANI FLAT NO.31
         BETWA APARTMENT T.T. NAGAR BHOPAL
         (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.       PRAKASH CHANDRA BACHCHANI S/O LATE
         SHRI JHAMANDAS BACHCHANI R/O 7/25,
         TAPTI   APARTMENT    GTB    COMPLEX,
         T.T.NAGAR BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.       SMT. SAVITRI BACHCHANI W/O SHRI SATISH
         KUMAR BACHCHANI R/O FLAT NO.31, BETWA
         APARTMENT       T.T.NAGAR    (MADHYA
         PRADESH)

4.       TARACHAND BACHCHANI S/O LATE SHRI
         JHAMANDAS BACHCHANI R/O 28-A, NISHAT
         COLONY 74 BUNGALOWS BHOPAL (MADHYA
         PRADESH)

5.       SHANKAR     BACHCHANI   S/O     SHRI
         TARACHAND BACHCHANI R/O 28-A, NISHAT
         COLONY 74 BUNGALOWS BHOPAL (MADHYA
         PRADESH)

6.       DILIP BACHCHANI S/O SHRI TARACHAND
         BACHCHANI R/O 28-A, NISHAT COLONY 74
         BUNGALOWS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

7.       SMT.  ASHA   D/O   SHRI   TARACHAND
         BACHCHANI R/O 28-A, NISHAT COLONY 74
         BUNGALOWS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

8.       SMT. KAVITA D/O SHRI TARACHAND
         BACHCHANI R/O 28-A, NISHAT COLONY 74
         BUNGALOWS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

9.       SMT. LAJWANTI DEVI BACHCHANI W/O LATE
         SHRI BHUGDOMAL BACHCHANI R/O GLATE
         NO.S-1, PLOT NO.120/130, MALVIYA NAGAR
                            2
        BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

10.     RAJESH KUMAR BACHCHANI S/O LATE SHRI
        BHUGDOMAL BACHCHANI R/O GLATE NO.S-1,
        PLOT NO.120/130, MALVIYA NAGAR BHOPAL
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

11.     JITENDRA KUMAR BACHCHANI S/O LATE
        SHRI BHUGDOMAL BACHCHANI R/O FLAT
        NO.S-1, PLOT NO.120/130, MALVIYA NAGAR
        BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

12.     KAMAL KUMAR BACHCHANI D/O LATE SHRI
        BHUGDOMAL BACHCHANI R/O FLAT NO.S-1,
        PLOT NO.120/130, MALVIYA NAGAR BHOPAL
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

13.     LAXMAN KUMAR BACHCHANI S/O LATE SHRI
        BHUGDOMAL BACHCHANI R/O GEETANJALI
        COMPLEX, BHADBHADA ROAD (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

14.     RAMESH BACHCHANI S/O LATE JHAMANDAS
        B ACHCHAN I R/O 88, MALVIYA NAGAR,
        BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

15.     RAJ KUMAR BACHCHANI S/O LATE SHRI
        JHAMANDAS BACHCHANI R/O 20, BETWA
        APARTMENT T.T.NAGAR BHOPAL (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

16.     SMT. SHEETAL DEVI BACHCHANI W/O SHRI
        RAMESH           BACHCHANI R/O     8,
        MALBIYANAGAR      BHOPAL    (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
        (BY SHRI PUSHPENDRA YADAV, ADVOCATE FOR
        RESPONDENT NO.14)

      This Arbitration case has come up for hearing on this day and the
court passed the following:
                                   ORDER

Applicant had entered into agreement with private respondents for sale and purchase of agricultural land. Agreement dated 14.7.2004 has Arbitration Clause No.17. Applicant had invoked Arbitration Clause and had made a prayer for appointment of Arbitrator.

2. Learned counsel for respondent no.14 had raised preliminary objection that Arbitration Clause in agreement cannot be acted upon as agreement is deficitely stamped. He relied on judgment of Apex Court reported in the case of Dharmarantnakara Rai Bahadur Arcot

Narainswamy Mudaliar Chattram and Other Charities and Others vs. Bhaskar Raju and Brothers and Others, (2020) 4 SCC 612. He relied on para-18 of said judgment and argued that it has been held that when lease deed or other instruments relied upon containing arbitration agreement is not properly stamped then same cannot be acted upon. Instrument has to be impounded and it has to be dealt with in the same manner as specified in Section 38 of the Stamp Act 1899. If deficit stamp duty and penalty is paid as laid down in Section 35 and 40 of the Stamp Act, then documents can be acted upon or admitted in evidence.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that Arbitrator be appointed and matter be sent to Arbitrator who can decide whether stamp

duty is properly paid or not and whether agreement is to be acted upon.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Considering the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Bhaskar Raju (supra) and the law laid down, it is evident that agreement dated 14.7.2004 has not properly been stamped. Consideration for agreement was Rupees One Crore Thirty Seven Thousand and contract of sale was only stamped with Rs.100/-, therefore, document has not been properly and duly stamped and cannot be acted upon. Applicant has also not filed original contract of sale which can be impounded by this Court and can be sent to Collector of Stamps for proper stamping.

6. Applicant had filed an application (I.A No.1484/2020) for exemption from filing certified original copy of Arbitration agreement.

7. I.A No.1484/2020 is allowed.

8. Arbitration Case, filed by applicant is disposed off granting liberty to applicant to approach Collector of Stamps for impounding of documents and payment of deficit Stamp Duty and thereafter make a request for appointment of Arbitrator.

9. With the aforesaid liberty, Arbitration Case is disposed off.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE mms

Digitally signed by MONSI M SIMON Date: 2022.03.08 14:12:14 +05'30'