Hyderabad: Justice J. Sreenivasa Rao of the Telangana High Court rejected a plea that a letter of intent only expresses an intention to enter into an agreement and basing on the said document, the applicants are not entitled to seek the appointment of an arbitrator, as the document was not an enforceable document. The judge appointed retired Justice C. Kodandaram as arbitrator to settle disputes between Sandhya Estates and Constructions pvt. ltd. and a group of software engineers. The judge made the order in a petition filed by Vikram Takru and 12 others. The petitioners contended that they were software professionals, who intended to establish a company with software development facilities in Hitec City, and had approached the real estate company for the purchase of unit no. 504 on the fifth floor along with twenty-five car parking slots in cellar 3 of the proposed ‘Sandya techno-I’ office complex at Rayadurgam of Serilingampally for a sum of Rs 15,79,82,741. According to the terms and conditions of the contract, the realtor was required to handover the property by July, 2018 but had failed to do so. They are jointly liable to pay liquidated damages of Rs 12,85,22,844 to the applicants as per the terms of the sale agreement. They complained that though they made several requests and demands for possession of the scheduled property, the respondents failed to complete the construction and abandoned the project. The realtor company unsuccessfully contended that the application for arbitration was not maintainable as the letter of intent merely expresses an intention to enter into a contract and there was no binding legal relationship between the applicants and the respondents. In the absence of a valid enforceable agreement, the applicants are not entitled to seek the relief sought in this application and the same is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The judge said it is an undisputed fact that the applicants have entered into the agreement of sale with the respondents to purchase the scheduled property and had paid certain amounts and disputes arose between the parties. As per the terms and conditions of the letter of intent, as well as agreement of sale, if any dispute arises between the parties, they have to dissolve the said dispute through arbitration. The terms and conditions mentioned in the letter of intent and consequential agreement of sale are binding upon the parties and the application filed by the applicants invoking arbitration clause for seeking appointment of arbitrator is maintainable under section 11(6) of the Act, he added.
Stamp Act cannot be applied to criminal cases: HC
Justice K. Surender of the Telangana High Court ruled that it cannot be said that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act are purely civil in nature to attract the provisions under the Stamp Act. Admittedly, provisions of the Stamp Act cannot be applied to a criminal case. The judge dismissed a petition filed by Shanmukha Chary questioning an order of a criminal court permitting an unstamped bond to be marked in a ‘cheque bounce case’. The petitioner is facing prosecution for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During the course of the trial, the complainant Dr. K. Vijay Mohan, a practicing doctor from Suryapet, filed a bond that was unstamped. The petitioner unsuccessfully contended that the document and a 10 times penalty should be imposed. The magistrate found that the document can neither be impounded nor stamp duty and penalty be collected. Vivek Jain, counsel for petitioner, relying on a judgement of the apex court, contended Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is almost civil wrong giving criminal overtones. In the context of the case, Justice Surender said that there was no doubt that a cheque bounce is quasi-criminal in nature. The emphasis by the counsel that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act should be treated as civil proceedings and the document has to be impounded has no legs to stand. Even the Supreme Court in Kaushalya's judgment had held that the offence is almost a civil wrong, which has been given a criminal overtone. However, since the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act warrant both fine and imprisonment, this court is of the view that the provisions of Stamp Act would not apply.
Relocation of services: HC disposes writ petition
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar, on Wednesday disposed of a writ petition pertaining to allocation of members of Telangana State Judicial Ministerial and Subordinate Services framed by the committee of judges of High Court of Telangana. A writ plea was filed by Syed Rahamatulla challenging the proceedings for reallocating him from Nizamabad district to Kamareddy district and retaining others without considering the domicile of origin/nativity as well as seniority of the petitioner to the opted district. He further contended that this was in violation of the newly formed judicial districts coterminous with the revenue district framed by the committee. The court, while disposing of the case, directed the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner made in 2022 within six weeks.
