Point of Law: Arbitration Award - Court Fee - Execution of Award - In cases a Judicial Officer, who passed the order may not be satisfied with the verdict by the High Court but in our judicial system the order of the High Court in such cases are required to be followed. Otherwise it would result into the failure of the system as the personal opinion of a judicial officer cannot hold the sway.

JUDGMENT :

GOUTAM BHADURI, J.

1. Heard.

2. This is an office reference by District Judge Raigarh.

3. The brief facts which cropped up for this reference are that an award was passed by the Arbitration Tribunal, Chennai. It was put to execution under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1996’). In the said application, the District Judge, Raigarh by order dated 03.12.2019 held that the award would attract the ad-valorem Court fee and since along with the award a Stamp of Rs. 150/- was only attached and was put to execution within the jurisdiction of C.G. State, consequently, according to District Judge as per Section 19(a) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1899’) Court fees of Rs. 10550/- would be leviable and accordingly the order was passed to levy such stamp. The said order was subject of challenge before the High Court. The High Court by its order dated 24.03.2021 passed in WP (227) No. 129/2020 and WP (227) No. 131/2020 held that the order passed by the learned District Judge cannot be sustained and set aside the said order and directed the executive Court to proceed with execution in accordance with law.

4. Learned District Judge being disturbed by such setting aside of the order, made a reference to High Court on the following six grounds:-

1. Whether an arbitration award is required to be properly stamped under the Act, 1899?

2. Whether, when the arbitration award has not been properly stamped or it has not been written on stamp, in that case also, enforcement of the award can be made under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act 1996’)?

3. Whether certified copy, true copy of signed copy or photocopy of the award which is not properly stamped, can be impounded under Section 33 of the Act, 1899?

4. Whether an unstamped or not properly stamped arbitration award can be subjected to charges and penalty under Section 35 of the Act, 1899 for its enforcement?

5. Whether an application under Section 36 of the Act, 1996 is required to be registered as civil execution case or as an arbitration case?

6. Whether the Presiding Officer who has passed an order in relation to payment of stamp duty under the Act, 1899, should be arrayed as a party in the proceedings?

5. Hence this reference for answer.

6. Shri Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, learned Additional Advocate General with Shri Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate on behalf of the State were heard.

7. The State on its initial submission raised the ground of admissibility and maintainability of the reference. Learned State counsel would submit that the reference is not maintainable for the reason that raising doubt on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in WP (227) No. 131 of 2020 and other such ground for making reference is not available in view of the language employed under Order 46 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’). They would further submit that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court the Presiding Officer cannot be arrayed as party for the reason that while deciding a lis the Presiding Officer cannot be made a party before the Court. Consequently, he cannot be made a party when the appeal is filed against its order. They would further submit that the issue which is tried to be raised by the learned Court is an administrative issue for which a register is maintained in the civil Court and it would be a ministerial proceeding to make an entry in the particular register. Referring to Section 60 of the Act, 1899 they would submit that the learned Court should have obtained the signature of the Registrar to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority before making such reference but the same having not been complied, the reference under Section 60 of the Act, 1899 is not maintainable. They would further submit that as per Rules 28 and 29 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as