Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Prithipal Singh And Company vs Union Of India on 26 July, 2013
Arbitration Appeal No. 75/2012
26/7/2013:
Shri V. R. Rao, learned Senior Counsel with Shri A.
Jain, for the appellant.
Shri R. S. Siddique, learned Assistant Solicitor General
for the respondent.
Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 37(1)(b) of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is made to an
order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the Additional District
Judge, Special Court No.2, Bhopal in Arbitration Case
No.11/2010 by which an award passed by an Arbitrator has
been interfered with and set aside only on the ground that
award has not been properly stamped and therefore, it is
unsustainable.
Facts that have come on record goes to show that
appellant entered into a contract with respondent for the purpose of providing a road for OTM Accn Signal Regiment at Bhopal. The contract was entered in the year 2003-04 and as certain dispute arose during the execution of the contract in accordance to the arbitration agreement available, matter was referred to the Arbitrator. Arbitrator conducted his proceedings and submitted his award. Challenging the award respondent filed arbitration proceeding under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The award passed by the learned Arbitrator has been set aside only on the ground that the award has not been properly stamped holding that this is against public policy, therefore, the same cannot be accepted, the award has been quashed. The only question warrant consideration in this appeal is that as to whether an award which is passed by an Arbitrator if not stamped is liable to be quashed in a proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This question has already been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of M. Anasuya Devi and Anr. Vs. M. Manik Reddy & Ors. - 2003(3) Arb.LR 404 (s) =2003(8) SCC 565 it has been held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that the question as to whether a arbitration award requires stamping cannot be gone into and is not required to be gone into in a proceeding which is held under Section 34. The question is relevant only if the award is filed for enforcement and therefore, at a stage of proceeding under Section 34, it has been held that this question need not be gone into and on that count an award quashed.
In the light of aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court in the case of M. Anasuya Devi (supra) the impugned order passed by the learned Court below under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act setting aside the award only on the ground that it has not been stamped is unsustainable.
In view of the above, this appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 31.10.2012 is quashed and appeal is allowed and disposed of. No order as to costs.
c.c. as per rules.
(Rajendra Menon) (Mrs. Vimla Jain)
Judge Judge
mrs.mishra