SATYANARAYANA MURTHY MILKKILINENI Vs. TERRASOL SUSTAINABILITY SOLUTIONS LLP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Points that would arises for consideration and adjudication in these petitions are:

(2.) W.P.No.3516/2016 has been filed by Mr.Satyanarayana Murthy Milkkilineni (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent') questioning the orders dated 04.03.2015 and 23.11.2015 passed in A.A.No.465/2014, which application came to be filed by Mrs.Terrasol Sustainability Solution LLP., (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner') under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking relief of an injunction to restrain the respondents therein, their agents or any person claiming through or under them from dealing with, transferring or in any manner encumbering the Schedule I company shares held by its share holders respondents 1 to 3 therein except in accordance with the term sheet; to restrain the defendants from alienating of encumbering Schedule II immovable property; to restrain first respondent therein from acting in breach of commitment and to provide consultations services to forth respondent therein in furtherance of the term sheet; to restrain respondent No.2 and 3 to continue to act as Directors and respondent No.1 to act as Managing Director of fourth respondent; to restrain respondents from interfering with the exercise of power by nominee partners of the petitioner Mr.Kiron D.Shah in furtherance of resolution passed by Board of Directors of fourth respondents on 26.09.2014 along with an interlocutory application namely, I.A.No.1 for grant of ad-interim temporary injunction namely to grant similar prayer as sought for in the main petition and during the course of adjudication of said interlocutory application I.A.No.1, respondent contended that there is no arbitration agreement between the parties and the term sheet/agreement dated 27.08.2014 is not properly stamped and as such court has no jurisdiction to entertain said application under appropriate Stampduty and penalty is paid on said document. On the plea of proper stamp duty not having been paid on the term sheet/agreement, an issue relating to "stamp duty" came to be formulated by the learned trial Judge and it reads:

(3.) Seeking review of said order dated 04.03.2015, respondent filed I.A.No.4 contending interalia that correct stamp duty and penalty payable on the term sheet/agreement dated 27.08.2014 would be Rs.3,43,31,748/- as against stamp duty of Rs.1,98,000/- collected by the Registry. It was also contended the nature of the document i.e., term sheet/agreement was not an issue at all for adjudication and no finding ought to have been recorded on the same. Said application came to be resisted to by the petitioner by filing detailed statement of objections and after considering rival contentions, learned trial Judge has held as to whether Stamp-duty is payable. Article 5(c) of the Stamp Act or Article 5(g), 5(i)(d)12, 5(j), 6(2), 12, 22, 29, 41(4) as contended by respondent has to be determined after evidence is recorded and after a full fledged enquiry. Hence, application for review came to be dismissed by order dated 27.11.2015. Hence, these two orders namely, order dated 04.03.2015 and 27.11.2015 have been challenged by the respondent in this writ petition.