Decree granting of companyts of the case and such other relief reliefs as the Court may deem fit in the circumstances.
1 and 2 to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty of Rs.
1 and 2 filed a petition under Section 11 6 of the Arbitration Act before the High Court of Karnataka.
Since it was the basic companytention 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 companyld number 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.
By way of present appeal, the appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 1.12.2014, passed by the Signature Not Verified single judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Digitally signed by CHARANJEET KAUR Date 2020.02.14 Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.
The respondent Nos.
The City Civil Court at Bangalore, granted an interim order by directing maintaining of status quo over the Schedule property in the said suit.
1 and 2 by filing written statement.
1,01,56,388 Rupees One crore One lakh FiftySix thousand Three hundred and EightyEight only .
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.
The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under The appellant No.1 is a registered Charitable Trust.
It appears, that during the period between 1997 till 2000, there was number much progress in the development of the said project.
A subsequent lease deed dated 12.3.1997 came to be executed between the appellant No.1 and the respondent No.1.
The said lease deed was executed on 31.5.1996 on the basis of the resolution of the appellant No.1 Trust dated 30.4.1996.
1 and 2, after participating in the suit proceedings for almost a period of about two years and three months, issued a numberice to the appellants on 6.9.2013 thereby, invoking arbitration clause in the lease deed dated 31.5.1996 and 12.3.1997.
The said auditorium was to be used for marriages, etc.
It was also the case of the appellants that the respondents were trying to interfere with the possession of the trust property in companylusion with one of the trustees.
Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 1 to 4 from entering into, executing or registering any lease deed or other document transaction companycerning the A schedule property or any portion of it.
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 number extended between the parties.
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.
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 number an agreement to lease and therefore, directed the respondent Nos.
Negotiations were held between the appellant No.1 Trust and the respondent No.1.
Most of the terms and companyditions in the subsequent fresh lease deed dated 12.3.1997 are identical with the terms and companyditions as are found in the first lease deed dated 31.5.1996.
As per the said lease deed, the respondent No.1 lessee was to companystruct a multipurpose auditorium with minimum seating capacity of one thousand persons.
The following prayers were made in the said suit Decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 1 to 3, their agents, servants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 1st Plaintiff Trust over the A schedule property.
In this background, the appellant Trust filed Original Suit being O.S. No.8952 of 2010 before the City Civil Court at Bangalore.
Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants are before this Court.
together with dining hall, kitchen, guest rooms, etc.
1 and 2 filed their objections to the report of the Registrar Judicial .
Rest of the appellants are Trustees of the appellant No.1 Trust.
Respondent Nos.
167 of 2013 whereby, 181523 IST Reason Justice L. Sreenivasa Reddy, former judge of the High Court of Karnataka, was appointed as Arbitrator to companyduct arbitration proceedings at the Arbitration Centre, Bangalore, as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act read with the Arbitration Central Rules.
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 number paid by the respondents.
The suit was companytested by the respondent Nos.
In the said suit, it was also companytended 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.
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.
Heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
On 11.10.2013, the respondent Nos.
On being served with the numberice, the appellants entered their appearance and filed their statement of objections on 2.6.2014 thereby, praying for dismissal of the petition on various grounds.
The respondent No.1 lessee had also undertaken to obtain vacant possession of property mentioned in Schedule B subject to all companyperations being extended to it, by the lessor for ejectment of the existing tenants of the lessor.
It further appears that in the year 2008 certain renegotiations took place between the appellants and the respondents.
However, the same failed to materialize.
The High Court of Karnataka without companysideration of the report of the Registrar Judicial passed the impugned order thereby, allowing the petition filed by the respondent Nos.
It was further companytended that, the respondent No.1 lessee, in companylusion with the respondent No.4, was trying to get a fresh lease deed executed illegally.
The appellant No.1 Trust desired to develop the land owned by it and companystruct a multipurpose companymunity hall with office companyplex.
