Delhi High Court
M/S. Indsao Construction Pvt. ... vs The Collector Of Stamp/ ... on 8 November, 2021
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision:- 08.11.2021
+ W.P.(C) 886/2021
M/S. INDSAO CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Prashant Kumar Mittal, Adv.
versus
THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP/ SUB-DIVISIONAL
MAGISTRATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC with Mr.
Vikrant Chawla, Ms. Ayushi Bansal
and Mr. Vishesh Jagga, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
1. Even though, despite opportunity, no counter affidavit has been filed;
the matter is taken up for disposal with the consent of the parties.
2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that an
Arbitral Award, pertaining to a dispute between the petitioner company and
M/s Baroda House NRGE CGHS, came to be passed on 11.10.2013. The
Award was made on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.1,000/- with directions
to the petitioner to have the amount of stamp duty payable thereon
adjudicated by the Collector of Stamps.
3. Consequently, on 07.11.2013, the petitioner filed an application
before the respondent/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dwarka for adjudication of
stamp duty on the Arbitral Award. The said application came to decided
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:AWANISH W.P.(C) 886/2021 Page 1 of 5
CHANDRA MISHRA
Signing Date:09.11.2021
12:22:39
vide the impugned order on 03.01.2020, whereunder the respondent has held
that the petitioner was liable to pay stamp duty @ 2% on the awarded
amount. While passing the impugned order, the respondent has placed
reliance on a decision dated 03.02.2010 of a Co-ordinate Bench in OMP No.
78/2003 titled "Eider Pwi Paging Limited & Eider Pwi Communications
Ltd. v. Union of India".
4. In support of the petition, Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the impugned order is wholly perverse as while
determining the payable stamp duty, the respondent has erroneously applied
the provisions of Clause (a) of Article 12 of Schedule-1A, as amended vide
the Indian Stamp (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2001 to the petitioner's case as
against Clause (b) under which the petitioner's case was covered. The
Award in question is, admittedly, for an amount more than Rs.1,000/- and
therefore, the respondent has erred in applying Clause (a) of Article 12,
without appreciating the fact that Clause (a) would be only applicable in a
case where the amount under the Award does not exceed Rs.1,000/-. He,
therefore, contends that the petitioner was liable to pay the stamp duty only
@0.1% in terms of Clause (b) of Article 12 of Schedule-1A of the Act.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to dispute
either the fact that the Award is for a value of more than Rs.1,000/- or that
Clause (b) of Article 12 is applicable to such cases where the Award is for a
sum exceeding Rs.1,000/-.
6. Even though, learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed the
petitioner's plea that Clause (b) of Article 12 would be applicable to the
present case, for the sake of clarity, the said provision is reproduced
hereinbelow:
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:AWANISH W.P.(C) 886/2021 Page 2 of 5
CHANDRA MISHRA
Signing Date:09.11.2021
12:22:39
Sch./ Description of Instrument Proper Stamp Duty
Art.
12. Award, that is to say any decision in
writing by an arbitrator or umpire, not
being an award directing a partition on a
reference made otherwise than by an
order of this Court in the course of a suit,
--
(a) Where the amount or value of the The same duty as a Bond
property to which the award relates (No.15) for such amount.
are set forth in such award does not
exceed Rs.1,000.
(b) If it exceeds Rs.1,000 but does not One rupee for every one
exceed Rs.5,000 thousand of the value of
and for every additional Rs.1,000 or the property to which the
part thereof in excess of Rs.5,000. award relates.
7. From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, there can really be no
dispute to the fact that as per Article 12 of Schedule-1A, as amended vide
the Indian Stamp (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2001 w.e.f. 28.03.2001, when an
Arbitral Award exceeds the value of Rs.1,000/-, the stamp duty on the
Award is payable only in terms of Clause (b) thereof; and Clause (a) would
be applicable only when the Award does not exceed the value of Rs.1,000/-.
8. Moreover, the reliance placed by the respondent on a decision of the
Co-ordinate Bench in OMP No. 78/2003 titled "Eider Pwi Paging Limited
& Eider Pwi Communications Ltd. v. Union of India" is also wholly
misplaced. It appears that the said decision has been applied mechanically,
without even appreciating the fact that the issue raised in the said decision
was not regarding as to which Clause of Article 12 would be applicable in a
case where the Award is of a value of more than Rs.1,000/-.
Signature Not Verified
CHANDRA MISHRA
Signing Date:09.11.2021
12:22:39
9. At this stage, the petitioner also points out that the respondent has
erroneously determined the payable stamp duty by applying Clause (a) on
the basis of an internal circular issued by the Govt. of India, NCT of Delhi,
directing all SDMs to calculate the stamp duty payable on Arbitral Awards
@ 2%. He submits that though a copy of the said circular is not available
with the petitioner, appropriate directions be issued to the respondent to
correctly apply Clause (b) of Article 12 in all such cases where the Award
exceeds the value of Rs.1,000/-.
10. I, therefore, have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order
and accepting the petitioner's plea that it was liable to pay stamp duty only
at @0.1% on the awarded amount, in accordance with Clause (b) of Article
12, Schedule 1-A.
11. The matter is, therefore, remanded back to the respondent for
determining the stamp duty in accordance with the observations made
hereinabove.
12. However, before concluding, this Court is constrained to express its
anguish in the lethargic manner in which the petitioner's application has
been dealt with by the respondent. The record shows that application for
adjudication of stamp duty was preferred by the petitioner way back on
07.11.2013, to decide which, the respondent took more than six years vide
its impugned order, which too, as already held hereinabove, is contrary to
the plain language of Article 12 of Schedule 1-A itself. The respondent is,
therefore, directed to determine the stamp duty payable by the petitioner on
the Award dated 11.10.2013, within two weeks from the receipt of this
order.
13. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of
Signature Not Verified
CHANDRA MISHRA
Signing Date:09.11.2021
12:22:39
Delhi for information and appropriate action, so that other similarly placed
persons do not have to approach this Court on account of erroneous
determination of stamp duty.
(REKHA PALLI)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 08, 2021
ms
Signature Not Verified
CHANDRA MISHRA
Signing Date:09.11.2021
12:22:39
