MP STOCK EXCHANGE RAJANI BHAWAN Vs. CMC LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 05.02.2011 (Annexure P/10) passed by the Court of 5th Additional District Judge, Indore in Arbitration Case No. 01/2009.

(2.) Briefly stated relevant facts are that a claim was made by Respondent No. 1 against the Petitioner, which was registered as Arbitration Case No. 1217. Matter was referred to the Indian Council of Arbitration for arbitral proceedings, which was constituted by the Presiding Arbitrator plus two Arbitrators. The two Arbitrators submitted their separate awards, which were not in consonance with each other. The Presiding Arbitrator agreed with the award of one of the Arbitrators on 20th October, 2003. Accordingly, majority of award was passed on 20th October, 2003, directing thereby the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 71,50,000/-with interest at the rate of 12% with effect from 04.01.2001 within one month from the date of receipt of copy of award. In case of failure, they were directed to make payment at the rate of 10% per annum on the said sum of Rs. 71,50,000/-until recovery of the amount. This award was prepared on a stamp of Rs. 10,010/-, copy of the same is on record as Annexure P/2. It was intimated to the Petitioner vide Annexure P/3 on 24.12.2003. Petitioner submitted an application-cum-objection on 05.04.2004 under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 on various grounds, inter alia, that the award is inadmissible in evidence, as it does not bear sufficient stamp duty. Prayer was made for rejection of the award on this ground. The application was opposed. Learned trial Judge by the impugned order dated 05.02.2011 rejected the Petitioner's application; copy of the same is Annexure P/10.

(3.) Shri Sethi, learned senior advocate contended that the arbitral award in question does not bear sufficient stamp duty. It, being an instrument within the meaning of the Stamp Act, was not liable to be received in evidence by the Court in absence of proper stamp duty and the same is liable to be rejected. According to him, the Court was competent to impound it and to send it to the Collector with a certificate in writing stating the amount of duty and penalty levied thereon. Reliance for this purpose has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hindustan Steel Limited v. Dilip Construction Company, 1969 1 SCC 597.