The main legal point established in the judgment is that a xerox copy of an award is not considered an 'instrument' under the Indian Stamp Act and, therefore, cannot be impounded. Additionally, the learned arbitrator does not have the statutory power to direct the payment of stamp duty within a specific period.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. - E.A. 896/2020 (by JD for enlargement of time to comply with order dated 15.07.2020

1. The present application under Section 148 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the Delhi Jal Board(DJB)/judgment debtor (JD) purportedly seeking extension of time for deposit of the awarded amount, as directed by this Court vide its order dated 15.07.2020. However, the applicant is, in essence, seeking to have the award impounded and have it sent to the concerned Collector for determining the additional stamp duty and penalty applicable thereon. A consequential prayer sought is for keeping in abeyance the directions issued on 15.07.2020 for deposit of the awarded amount, till such time the additional stamp duty and penalty leviable are determined by the Collector and paid by the DH.

2. The captioned petition was preferred by the Decree Holder (DH) on 09.01.2020 seeking enforcement of the award passed by the learned sole Arbitrator on 02.09.2019 whereunder its claim for a sum of INR 38,00,97,929/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 03.09.2018 has been allowed. The DH has also sought attachment of the JD's bank account as also its movable and immovable assets, in order to preserve its interest to the extent of the awarded amount.

3. Since the enforcement petition was accompanied only by a xerox copy of the award, as against the original award which was required to be filed therewith, the DH filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking exemption from filing the original award. This application being Ex.Appl.(OS) No.21/2020, was allowed by the Court on the very first date, i.e., 10.01.2020 when notice was issued in the petition. Notably, at the time of accepting notice, learned counsel for the JD did not object to the exemption being granted but sought a deferment of the hearing till the JD's challenge to the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitration Act') was heard. Since the Court was informed that the Section 34 petition was likely to be listed for hearing within 10 days, the Court adjourned this petition to 21.01.2020 and later, to 18.03.2020, at the request of the JD.

4. However, by 18.03.2020, regular functioning of the Court stood suspended on account of the COVID-19 pandemic which prevented the matter from being taken up over the next few months. The petition was then taken up on 15.07.2020 an application filed by DH, being IA No.627/2020, seeking a direction to the JD to release the awarded amount with interest in its favour. On this day, the JD again prayed for an adjournment on the ground of pendency of its Section 34 petition, but the Court rejected this request in the light of the fact that the award had not been stayed and, instead, directed the JD to deposit the awarded amount along with interest in Court.

5. Aggrieved by this direction to deposit the awarded amount, the JD preferred a special leave petition before the Supreme Court being SLP(C) 10071/2020 wherein one of its main plank of challenge, as seen from the synopsis and the grounds, was that the arbitral award was inexecutable for being insufficiently stamped and needed to be impounded before any directions for deposit could be given. The relevant extract of the synopsis reads as under:-

"It is submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable for the following reasons:-

(a) That the Arbitral Award is inexecutable in the present form as it suffers from several infirmities, inter alia on the ground of being improperly stamped.

(b) That under the scheme of the Arbitration Act read with the Indian Stamp Act, 1889 an award is capable of being executed only upon being adequately stamped

(c) Because Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1889 casts an imperative upon the Court to impound an insufficiently stamped document I instrument; which the Hon'ble High Court has wholly ignored and has instead taken steps to sec