The petitioner is the same in both these petitions and the impugned orders also arise out of the same proceedings. In W.P.No.16694/2014 the order dated 01.02.2014 whereby the stamp duty and penalty relating to the award is directed to be paid, is assailed. Since the petitioner was unable to pay the stamp duty and penalty as directed, they filed an application under Section 37(2) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (‘Karnataka Act, 1957’ for short) seeking that the same be referred to the Deputy Commissioner (Stamps) and District Registrar for determination and collection of Stamp duty which is declined by the order dated 10.03.2014, which is assailed in W.P.No.16693/2014. As the issues are interrelated, the petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

2. In respect of certain dispute between the parties herein, the same had been referred to the sole arbitrator who has passed the award dated 31.05.2007. The award being under the Arbitration Act, 1940 in order to seek that the same be made rule of the Court, the proceedings in A.C.No.2/2007 is initiated by the petitioner. The respondent raised the objection that the award has not been duly stamped and it is in that regard the present issue between the parties has arisen.

3. Heard Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned senior counsel on behalf of Sri Varun Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shankarlingappa Nagaraj, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the petition papers.

4. Though the order dated 01.02.2014 whereby the deficit stamp duty has been determined and the penalty has been imposed is assailed in W.P.No.16694/2014, the said order being a fall out of the earlier proceedings, in my opinion, the same does not call for interference. This is due to the fact that at an earlier instance the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.44482/2014 assailing the order dated 25.07.2014 and in the said proceedings this Court had impounded the award for not being sufficiently stamped and the trial Court was directed to determine the stamp duty and penalty payable keeping in view the observations made in W.P.No.14486/2010, an earlier writ petition between the parties. It is in that light the Court below has taken into consideration the provision contained in Article 11 of the Karnataka Act, 1957 and the stamp duty as provided therein has been applied and after providing deduction for the amount already paid, the balance amount is held to be the deficit stamp duty. Insofar as the penalty, there being no discretion vested in the Court to impose the lesser penalty, it has ordered the penalty to be paid as contained in the provision.

5. In the light of the above, since the order passed by the Court below dated 01.02.2014 is in accordance with law, the contentious issue which arises for consideration is with regard to the procedure that is required to be adopted by the Court, if the party who is directed to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty does not choose to pay the amount and proceed with the case, but on the other hand pleads inability to pay the stamp duty.

6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner while relying on Section 37(2) of the Karnataka Act, 1957 being applicable to the present position herein would further refer to Section 39 therein to contend that in such situation the only option for the impounding authority or the Court is to send the original of the instrument to the Deputy Commissioner to enable the Deputy Commissioner to proceed in the manner as provided in Section 39. The learned counsel for the respondent would however contend that in the instant case, the impounding has been done by this Court while disposing of W.P.No.44482/2013 and in that view had directed the Court below to determine the stamp duty and penalty payable on the impounded award. Hence he contends, in that view when the learned Judge of the Court below has already determined the stamp duty and penalty, a re-determination by the Deputy Commissioner w