Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39044
- 1 -
W.P. No.101203 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 101203 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SHRI JITENDRA PRESUK BHUTADA,
AGE 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 1316, NEAR BALAJI TEMPLE,
SHIVAJI ROAD, JAMKHANDI.
& PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
CHNADUKAKA SARAF & SONS PVT. LTD,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
& HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 32/1/B/5,
GUNAWADI ROAD, BARAMATI -413102,
BY ITS DULY AUTHORISED OFFICER,
SHRI GOMTESH S/O CHANDRAKANT MAGDUM,
AGE 34 YEARS, OCC: EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT,
R/O.: 338/C, MOODLIYAR CHAIMBERS,
NEAR APPOLLO THEATRE RASTA PETH,
PUNE-411011, STATE MAHARASTRA.
& RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHARAD V.MAGADUM, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
18.11.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.24/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JAMKHANDI A COPY OF WHICH
IS PRODUCED HEREIN AS PER ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
VISHAL
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
Digitally
signed by
VISHAL
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
Location:
Dharwad
Date:
2022.10.14
09:33:46
+0530
- 2 -
W.P. No.101203 of 2022
1.
The order passed by the Trial Court, overruling
the objections of the petitioner regarding admission of a
document is called in question, in this writ petition.
2.
The petitioner objected to the admission of the
memorandum of understanding (MoU) dated 04.03.2019
in evidence on the ground that it was not registered and it
was not sufficiently stamped.
3.
Clause (4) of the said MoU reads as follows:
<4. The Leave and License or Lease Deed
agreement will be register at register office
within 2 months from the date of MoU.=
4.
Thus, as per this particular Clause, the parties
had agreed to enter into a Leave and License or Lease
Deed and also get the same registered within two months
from the date of entering into MoU.
5.
This makes it clear that the parties intended to
enter into a proper contract at a later point of time and no
rights as such were created in respect of the properties
- 3 -
under the MoU. Since the monies were paid under the MoU
and according to the plaintiff, the MoU did not fructify into
a Leave and License or a Lease Deed the suit had been
filed.
6.
The contention that this document was required
to be registered and stamp duty was required to be paid
on the basis that it created transfer of interest in
immovable property cannot be accepted since the MoU
only
contemplated
the
execution
of
a
contract
subsequently.
7.
The Trial Court has taken the view that the
contention of the petitioner that it was a lease deed could
not be accepted and it was only a MoU to enter into future
contract. There is no infirmity in this reasoning of the Trial
Court and I find no reason to entertain this writ petition
and the same is accordingly dismissed.
- 4 -
In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, pending
applications, if any, does not survive for consideration and
are accordingly disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Vnp*
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18
