2013 (6) TMI 838

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....MOU) dated 29 July 2011 was insufficiently stamped and that in consequence, the document could not be acted upon unless the stamp duty and penalty, if any, payable thereon was adjudicated upon. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in SMS Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandmari Tea Co. Pvt.Ltd., 2011(4)-ARB.L.R. - 265(S.C.) - At Paragraphs 10 and 11, where the Supreme Court held as follows : "10. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... xxx xxx xxx Having regard to Section 35 of the Stamp Act, unless the stamp duty and penalty due in respect of the instrument is paid, the court cannot act upon the instrument, which means that it cannot act upon the arbitration agreement also which is part of the instrument. ... ... .......

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the stamp duty would be payable only on the execution of the final agreement for each phase. 4. The agreement between the parties which is contained in the MOU dated 29 July 2011, prima facie, does contemplate that the Respondents will finance the construction of and construct the rehabilitation and free sale buildings on the property in question. In consideration thereof, Clause-4 stipulates that the Appellant would hand over to the Respondents a certain proportion of the constructed area of the free sale buildings. Clause-6 required the Respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 1.50 crores to the Appellant to enable the Appellant to finance transit accommodation for the slum dwellers which was payable every month on and from 1 April 2011 till t....