VIJAY SHARMA v. VIVEK MAKHIJA
Section 11 Application Allowed: Prior Order on Stamp Duty Adjudication Not a Bar; Arbitral Tribunal to Decide Stamp Duty Issues.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:8224
Decision Date: 09-05-2025
List of Laws
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Right to Information Act, 2005
- Facts: Vijay Sharma filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking reference to arbitration. The Respondents, Vivek Makhija and Anr., objected, arguing that the issues had already been adjudicated in a 2022 order by a Single Judge of the same court, which directed stamping of the instrument in question. They also contended that the Applicant suppressed the fact that stamp duty was payable and had been adjudicated.
- Procedural Posture: This is an Arbitration Application before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, where the Applicant seeks the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Respondents are resisting the application.
- Issue: (1) Whether the 2022 order constitutes a final adjudication on merits, precluding a fresh application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? (2) Whether the Applicant's alleged suppression of information regarding stamp duty adjudication warrants dismissal of the Section 11 application?
- Holding: (1) The 2022 order does not constitute a final adjudication on merits. (2) The application under Section 11 is allowed, and an arbitrator is appointed.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the 2022 order merely directed the Applicant to have the stamp duty adjudicated and granted liberty to come back to court. It was not an adjudication on merits. Furthermore, the legal position regarding the Section 11 court's involvement in stamp duty issues has changed due to a Supreme Court declaration that such issues should be addressed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The Court also found that while the Applicant's conduct in not disclosing the stamp duty adjudication upfront was not appreciated, it did not warrant dismissal of the application, especially since the Arbitral Tribunal could address the issue. The Court appointed Ms. Gulnar Mistry as the Sole Arbitrator.
🔒 For Members Only