JUDGMENT :

G.S. Patel, J.

A contract is executed outside this State. It pertains to work to be done outside the State. It contains an arbitration clause. That clause, and the jurisdiction clause, reference Mumbai. The arbitration is to be in Mumbai. Nothing else is to be done in Mumbai or Maharashtra. Disputes arise. Arbitration is invoked. The agreement is 'brought into' this State - on the agreement, an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act is fled. Is the agreement liable to stamp in this state, where the only thing to be done is arbitration? Is arbitration a 'thing done or to be done' in this state? That is the short, yet interesting, question of interpretation of one portion of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act 1958 that arises in this application.

2. The applicant, S Satyanarayana & Co, is a partnership firm based in Vishakhapatnam. The respondent, Weest Qeuay Multiport Private Limited ("West Quay") is based in Mumbai. Weest Qeuay develops berths at various ports in India. The Vishakhapatnam Port Trust, constituted under the Major Port Trust Act, awarded the respondent a works contract for the development of a berth at their WeQe-6 Jetty at Vishakhapatnam. The