Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shriram Transport Finance Company … vs Virendra Singh on 18 December, 2024
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1 AA-82-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
AA No. 82 of 2024
(SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs VIRENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 18-12-2024
Shri Satish Agrawal - Advocate, Shri Yashvardhan Agrawal -
Advocate and Shri Divy Krishna Bilaiya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ashok Lalwani - Senior Advocate with Shri D.L.Tiwari -
Advocate for the respondents.
Heard on I.A.No.13650 of 2024 – an application for dismissal of
appeal being non-est.
Counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed out that the award
has merged in the order passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act,1996. For impugning the award and the order under Section
34 of the Arbitration Act, the Court Fees as per clause 7 of the Schedule IA
of the Stamp Act, 1899 are to be fixed for making it a legal document. The
appellant has fixed the Court Fee of Rs.5/- but has not fixed the stamp duty
of 2% of the award amount. It is contended that in terms of Section 35 of the
Stamp Act until and unless the stamp duty is paid, the award cannot be
considered for any purpose nor it can be acted upon. Therefore, this
application has been filed seeking dismissal of the Arbitration Appeal being
non-est. Placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the High Court of
Patna in Mosmat Ram Kali Kuer and others Vs. Indradeo Choudhary and
another reported in AIR 1985 Patna 148 with reference to Para 8 and also in
the case of Jagat Dhish Bhargava Vs. Jawahar Lal Bhargava and others
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Signing time: 24-12-2024
18:14:23
2 AA-82-2024
reported in AIR 1961 SCC 832 with reference to Para 5, i t is argued that
considering the aforesaid settled legal preposition of law and without
complying with the aforesaid provisions, the Arbitration Appeal filed by the
appellant is not maintainable.
Counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently opposed the
contentions and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
M.Anasuya Devi and another Vs. M.Manik Reddy and others reported in
(2003) 8 SCC 565 had an occasion to consider the aforesaid issue that
whether the question of payment of Court fees and Stamp Duty is to be taken
care off in the proceedings which has been initiated under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held as under :-
“4. After we heard the matter, we are of the view that in
the present case this issue was not required to be gone
into at the stage of the proceedings under Section 34 of
the Act. In fact, this issue was premature at that
stage.Section 34 of the Act provides for setting aside of
the award on the grounds enumerated therein. It is not in
dispute that an application for setting aside the award
would not lie on any other ground, which is not
enumerated in Section 34 of the Act. The question as to
whether the award is required to be stamped and
registered, would be relevant only when the parties
would file the award for its enforcement under Section
36 of the Act. It is at this stage the parties can raise
objections regarding its admissibility on account of
non- registration and non-stamping under Section 17 of
the Registration Act. In that view of the matter, the
exercise undertaken to decide the said issue by the civil
court as also by the High Court was entirely an exercise
in futility. The question whether an award requires
stamping and registration is within the ambit of Section
47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not covered bySignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Signing time: 24-12-2024
18:14:23
3 AA-82-2024
Section 34 of the Act.”
It is submitted that clear observation is made by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court that the question whether the award is required to be stamped or
registered will be relevant only when the parties would file the award for its
enforcement in terms of Section 36 of the Act. This proceedings are initiated
under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking
execution of the Arbitral award. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said
that these proceedings are under Section 36 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, as well as
the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Anasuya
Devi (supra), the application filed by the respondents seeking dismissal of
the proceedings is devoid of substance because these proceedings cannot be
considered to be proceedings in terms of Section 36 of the Act of 1996
seeking enforcement of the arbitral award.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
List the matter after four weeks for consideration.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
AM
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Signing time: 24-12-2024
18:14:23