ORDER :

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the decree holder/plaintiff with a prayer to quash the order dated 06.07.2019 and 31.08.2019 passed by the Court of First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi (for short ‘Trial Court’) in E.P. No. 134/2016 vide Annexure-D and E respectively. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the executing Court to calculate the stamp duty as provided under Article 11(b) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.

2. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records are that the petitioner-Company had initiated arbitration proceedings against the respondents herein for recovery of the overdue loan amount borrowed by them. The claim made by the petitioner was partly allowed by the arbitrator and a judgment and award was passed in favour of the petitioner herein on 23.04.2016 holding that the petitioner is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 8,10,251/- with interest at 18% per annum from the date of the award till realization with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The said award had attained finality.

3. The petitioner thereafter wards had filed an execution petition in E.P. No. 134/2016 before the Court of First Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi claiming the award amount with interest at 18% per annum, which totally amounted to Rs. 8,87,975/-. After the judgment debtors were served, the executing Court heard the matter regarding payment of stamp duty on the award which was sought to be executed and on 06.07.2019 an order was passed holding that the petitioner is required to have pay the stamp duty at 6% on the valuation of the award amount and accordingly, directed the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty and the matter was adjourned to 14.08.2019. On 14.08.2019, the case was finally adjourned to 31.08.2019 for payment of the deficit stamp duty. On 31.08.2019, since the deficit stamp duty was not paid, the execution petition was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the orders dated 06.07.2019 and 31.08.2019, the petitioner/decree holder is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the amendment to the Karnataka Stamp Act vide Karnataka Act No. 19 of 2014, the petitioner is required to pay the stamp duty as provided under Article 11 (b) of the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act. The Trial Court has failed to take note of this amendment and had erred in directing the petitioner to pay the stamp duty at 6% on the valuation of the award amount.

5. The learned High Court Government Pleader, who was directed to take notice for the respondents for the purpose of assisting the Court submits that the stamp duty is required to be paid, as may be applicable as on the date of drawing up of the award and not that may be applicable as on the date of initiating the proceedings to execute the said award. He submits that in spite of sufficient opportunities being given to the petitioner, it had failed to pay the deficit stamp duty and therefore, no fault can be found in the order passed by the executing Court dismissing the execution petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

7. The procedure for enforcement and execution of the decrees in India is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while that of Arbitral Award in India is primarily governed by the Arbitration an Conciliation Act, 1996 as well as the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 36(1) of the Arbitration Act provides for execution of the arbitral award. The said Act does not expressly lay down any legal requirement that mandates the parties to an arbitration agreement to pay stamp duties on an arbitral award. In the case of M. Anasuya Devi vs. M. Manik Reddy, 2003 (8) SCC 565, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the objection as to non stamping of the arbitral award is required to be dealt with at the stage of enforcement of a