The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct interpretation and application of the provisions of Clause (a) and Clause (b) of Article 12 of Schedule-1A for stamp duty determination on an Arbitral Award.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. - Even though, despite opportunity, no counter affidavit has been filed; the matter is taken up for disposal with the consent of the parties.

2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that an Arbitral Award, pertaining to a dispute between the petitioner company and M/s Baroda House NRGE CGHS, came to be passed on 11.10.2013. The Award was made on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.1,000/- with directions to the petitioner to have the amount of stamp duty payable thereon adjudicated by the Collector of Stamps.

3. Consequently, on 07.11.2013, the petitioner filed an application before the respondent/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dwarka for adjudication of stamp duty on the Arbitral Award. The said application came to decided vide the impugned order on 03.01.2020, whereunder the respondent has held that the petitioner was liable to pay stamp duty @ 2% on the awarded amount. While passing the impugned order, the respondent has placed reliance on a decision dated 03.02.2010 of a Co-ordinate Bench in OMP No. 78/2003 titled "Eider Pwi Paging Limited & Eider Pwi Communications Ltd. v. Union of India".

4. In support of the petition, Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is wholly perverse as while determining the payable stamp duty, the respondent has erroneously applied the provisions of Clause (a) of Article 12 of Schedule-1A, as amended vide the Indian Stamp (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2001 to the petitioners case as against Clause (b) under which the petitioners case was covered. The Award in question is, admittedly, for an amount more than Rs.1,000/- and therefore, the respondent has erred in applying Clause (a) of Article 12, without appreciating the fact that Clause (a) would be only applicable in a case where the amount under the Award does not exceed Rs.1,000/-. He, therefore, contends that the petitioner was liable to pay the stamp duty only @0.1% in terms of Clause (b) of Article 12 of Schedule-1A of the Act.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to dispute either the fact that the Award is for a value of more than Rs.1,000/- or that Clause (b) of Article 12 is applicable to such cases where the Award is for a sum exceeding Rs.1,000/-.

6. Even though, learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed the petitioners plea that Clause (b) of Article 12 would be applicable to the present case, for the sake of clarity, the said provision is reproduced hereinbelow:

7. From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, there can really be no dispute to the fact that as per Article 12 of Schedule-1A, as amended vide the Indian Stamp (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2001 w.e.f. 28.03.2001, when an Arbitral Award exceeds the value of Rs.1,000/-, the stamp duty on the Award is payable only in terms of Clause (b) thereof; and Clause (a) would be applicable only when the Award does not exceed the value of Rs.1,000/-.

8. Moreover, the reliance placed by the respondent on a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in OMP No. 78/2003 titled "Eider Pwi Paging Limited & Eider Pwi Communications Ltd. v. Union of India" is also wholly misplaced. It appears that the said decisio