Back
High Court Of Delhi
AMIT MALIK - Appellant
Versus
KAMLESH MALIK - Respondent
Decided On : 05/05/2006
Arbitration - Enforcement of Arbitral Award - Registration Act, 1908, Stamp Act, 1899 - The court dismissed objections against the arbitral award and held that objections were barred by limitation. The objections of inadequate stamping and non-registration of the award were dismissed as the award was registered within the statutory time period and the objections were hopelessly barred by limitation. The court also noted that the appellant had already taken benefit of the award and acted in pursuance thereof, and therefore cannot challenge the rest of the award.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the share of properties among family members, which was referred to arbitration. The appellant filed objections against the arbitral award, claiming non-service of the award, inadequate stamping, and non-registration within the stipulated period.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the objections were barred by limitation and dismissed them. The court also noted that the appellant had already taken benefit of the award and acted in pursuance thereof, and therefore cannot challenge the rest of the award.
Issues: The issues involved non-service of the award, inadequate stamping, non-registration within the stipulated period, and the enforceability of the arbitral award.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that objections were hopelessly barred by limitation, and the objections of inadequate stamping and non-registration were dismissed as the award was registered within the statutory time period. The court also noted that the appellant had already taken benefit of the award and acted in pursuance thereof, and therefore cannot challenge the rest of the award.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
( 1 ) THESE are three appeals and have been filed against two orders dated 14. 12. 2005 and 13. 2. 2006 passed in two execution petitions No. 35 and 36/2004
( 2 ) THE facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows: shri Amit Malik and Shri Anurag Malik are two real brothers. Smt. Kamlesh Malik is their mother. The family owned following four properties:- (i) Property bearing No. A/20, Mahendru Enclave, New Delhi. (ii) Flat at Apna Villa. (iii) Godown at Sadar Bazar. (iv) Shop at Sadar Bazar-M/s Malik Light House.
( 3 ) THERE was a dispute between the parties regarding their share in the aforesaid properties. The said dispute was referred by them for arbitration to Shri B. M. Khurana who was an elder of their family. Shri B. M. Khurana, Sole arbitrator after hearing the parties gave his award on 3/6/2001. Material portion of the arbitral award reads as under:-"property BEARING No. A/20, MAHENDRU ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI. 11. Smt. Kamlesh Malik shall execute necessary documents of transfer in favour of shri Anurag Malik in respect of basement, first and second floor with roof except ground floor which shall remain in the possession of Smt. Kamlesh Malik. 12. Similarly Shri Amit Malik and Shri Anurag Malik shall execute documents of transfer in favour of Smt. Kamlesh Malik in respect to the Godown at Sadar Bazar and also the first at Apna Villa. SHOP AT SADAR BAZAR M/s MALIK LIGHT HOUSE. 13. Similarly Smt. Kamlesh Malik and Shri Anurag Malik shall execute documents of transfer in favour of Shri Amit Malik. 14. Further the value of assets, stock, creditors, cash in hand in respect of M/s malik Light House, Export firm in India and abroad along with debtors, loans, interest to be paid shall be divided equally amongst the three partners on the finalization and distribution. "
( 4 ) TWO execution petitions (Execution Petition No. 35 and 36/2004) were filed by Shri Anurag Malik and Smt. Kamlesh Malik both for execution of the arbitral award dated 03. 06. 2001. The objections against the arbitral award were filed in the execution proceedings by Shri Amit Malik (appellant herein ). The objections of Shri Amit Malik against the arbitral award in question are to the following effect:- (i)No copy of the award which has been registered was served on the respondent and thus the occasion to file any objection under Section 34 of the Act did not arise; (ii)The original award is the award which has not been registered and thus it is not permissible in law to register a copy of the said award. Thus the defect of non registration of the award cannot be cured by the subsequent stamping and registration of a copy of the award. (iii)The registration of the award is not in accordance with law as the award is not within the period stipulated under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Registration Act) providing for a four months period of time for its execution. Section 25 of the Registration Act further stipulates an extension of four months in case of non presentation due to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident on payment of fine. (iv)The award is not stamped in accordance with the Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Stamp Act ) since it is an award partitioning the properties and thus was liable for payment of stamp duty at ad valorem rates in terms of entry 45 of Schedule 1 of the Stamp Act as an instrument of partition includes an award within the meaning of Section 2 (15) of the Stamp Act. When the document is not properly stamped, procedure prescribed in Chapter IV of the Stamp Act must be followed and the document must be impounded and sent to the Collector of stamps in terms of Section 33 of the Stamp Act and such a document would be inadmissible in evidence in view of provisions of Section 35 of the Stamp Act.
( 5 ) THE above objections against the arbitral award dated 03. 06. 2001 filed by the appellant Shri Amit Malik were dismissed by a detailed order runn
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
