IMPORTANT POINT
If Court comes to conclusion, that instrument is not properly stamped, it should be impounded and dealt with in the manner specified in Section 38 of Stamp Act, 1899.

JUDGMENT :

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. By way of present appeal, the appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 1.12.2014, passed by the single judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 167 of 2013 whereby, Justice L. Sreenivasa Reddy, former judge of the High Court of Karnataka, was appointed as Arbitrator to conduct 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.

4. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under:

5. The appellant No.1 is a registered Charitable Trust. Rest of the appellants are Trustees of the appellant No. 1 -Trust. The appellant No.1 - Trust desired to develop the land owned by it and construct a multi-purpose community hall with office complex.

6. 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. Negotiations were held between the appellant No. 1 - Trust and the respondent No.1.

7. 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. 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 not extended between the parties. 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. As per the said lease deed, the respondent No.1 - lessee was to construct a multi-purpose auditorium with minimum seating capacity of one thousand persons. The said auditorium was to be used for marriages, etc. together with dining hall, kitchen, guest rooms, etc. The respondent No.1 - lessee had also undertaken to obtain vacant possession of property mentioned in Schedule 'B' subject to all co-operations being extended to it, by the lessor for ejectment of the existing tenants of the lessor. 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.

8. A subsequent lease deed dated 12.3.1997 came to be executed between the appellant No.1 and the respondent No.1. Most of the terms and conditions in the subsequent/fresh lease deed dated 12.3.1997 are identical with the terms and conditions as are found in the first lease deed dated 31.5.1996.

9. It appears, that during the period between 1997 till 2000, there was not much progress in the development of the said project. It further appears that in the year 2008 certain re-negotiations took place between the appellants and the respondents. However, the same failed to materialize. 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 not paid by the respondents. It was also the case of the appellants that the respondents were trying to interfere with the possession of the trust property in collusion with one of the trustees. In this background, the appellant -Trust filed Original Suit being O.S. No.8952 of 2010 before the City Civil Court at Bangalore. In the said suit, it was also contended 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. It was further contended that, the respondent No.1 - lessee, in collusion with the respondent No.4, was trying to get a fresh lease deed executed illegally. The following prayers were made in the said suit:

"a. Decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 1 to 3, their agents, servants from interfering with