S B SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant claiming to be the sole proprietor of the firm M/s. S.B. Singh & Sons carrying on business at Deoria, entered into a contract dated 21-8-1970 with the opposite parties relating to the sale of released bridge girders. There was a dispute between the parties and Sri K.M. Mall, Dy. General Manager of Respondent No. 1, was appointed arbitrator and he gave his award dated 1-12-1971. The Appellant prayed that the award be made a rule of the Court. The opposite-parties filed objections and one of the objections was to the effect that the award was not made on sufficiently stamped paper and hence it was a nullity.

(2.) On behalf of the Appellant it had been contended in the court below, that in the first instance the award was on sufficiently stamped paper and, in the alternative, if it was found to be insufficiently stamped he was prepared to make good the deficiency. The award was actually written on a paper bearing stamps worth Rs. 63'25 only. The award was in respect of property worth Rs. 4,41,978/-. The Appellant had also valued his application at the same amount. According to Article 12(b) Sch. I of the Stamp Act an award made otherwise than by an order of the court in the course of a suit, if it exceeds Rs. 1000/- for every additional Rs. 1000/- or part thereof, Rs. 150 has to be paid. Computed in this manner the award for Rs. 4,41,978/- should have been written on a paper bearing stamps of Rs. 684/-. Thus, it is obvious that the award had been written on insufficiently stamped paper. On account of this infirmity the contention of the Respondents, which found favour with the court below, was that the award could not be enforced. The same argument has been strenuously urged before us by the learned Counsel for the Respondents. We are, however, unable to accede to the same.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Respondents strongly relied on the decision in Rikhabdass v. Ballabhdass, 1962 AIR(SC) 551 where the court had to consider the case of an award which was unstamped and unregistered. It was held that the award could not be remitted to the arbitrator for the purpose of getting it stamped and or registered. That decision turned entirely on the interpretation of Section 16 of the Arbitration Act which is attracted only when the award has to be examined for purposes of reconsideration. It was ruled that the case did not come within any of the clauses of Section 16 and the Arbitrator became functus officio after making the award. The view expressed was (sic) those circumstances the original award, which was the one written by the Arbitrator, could not be sent back to him for re-writing after supplying the requisite stamps. It is, however, significant that in that case no request was at all made to make good the deficiency in the stamp duty under the provisions of Section 35 of the Stamp Act. That is why towards the concluding portion of the judgment their Lordships observed that it was open to the parties to take such steps, if any, as were available to them at law for curing the defect arising from the award being on an unstamped paper. It is manifest from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rikhabdass v. Ballabhadradass (supra) that an insuperable legal difficulty was created in that case on account of the fact that the only prayer made on behalf of the Applicant was that the award be remitted for rectification to the Arbitrator for re-writing the same on a duly stamped paper. It was for this reason that no other point was decided and such other right or remedy as might be available to the parties in order to obtain relief was left open. The position was made explicit by a later decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. Dilip Construction Co., 1969 AIR(SC) 1238 where this point was fully examined and the dictum enunciated as to how relief could be given to a party in a case where an award was written on an insufficiently stamped paper. The observations of the Supreme Court made in Rikhabdass's case must, therofore, be confined to the facts of that case which are clearly distinguishable from those of the one in hand. The powers of the Arbitrators to deal with an award either in the first instance or after remission by an order of the court as provided under the Arbitration Act are distinct from the powers conferred on a court under the Stamp Act which lays down a complete procedure for dealing with the admissibility of instruments which are insufficiently stamped. It cannot be doubted that an award is "an instrument" within the meaning of the Stamp Act. See Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. Dilip Construction Co. (supra). Section 35 casts a duty on the Court to "impound" an instrument which is not duly stamped and which is sought to be filed before it. Section 33(1) provides insofar as it is relevant: