An arbitral award remains valid despite insufficient stamping; however, limitations under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act must be adhered to, and delay beyond the specified period cannot be condoned.

JUDGMENT

[Hearing held through video conferencing]

Vibhu Bakhru, J. (Oral)--The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter `the A&C Act') impugning an arbitral award dated 01.05.2018 (hereafter `the impugned award') delivered by an Arbitral Tribunal constituted by Justice (Retired) J.S. Khehar, former Chief Justice of India as the Sole Arbitrator (hereafter `the Arbitral Tribunal').

2. The arbitration was conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Centre (DIAC) and, in accordance with its Rules. The record of the proceedings held on 01.05.2018 indicates that the impugned award was pronounced at the DIAC by the Arbitral Tribunal. The Authorized Representative of the claimant (PEC Limited) was present but none had appeared on behalf of the respondents (the petitioners in this petition). The record of the proceedings also indicate that four signed copies of the award were furnished to the DIAC for its records and as well as for onward transmission to the concerned parties. It is not disputed that the award was forwarded by the Coordinator, DIAC. The signed award was forwarded by DIAC along with the record of the proceedings held on 01.05.2018, under the cover of a letter dated 23.05.2018 and the same was duly received by the petitioner.

3. The petitioner has filed the present petition on 31.10.2019 after a delay of more than seventeen months from receiving the impugned award. Notwithstanding, the petitioner contends that the present petition is within the period as prescribed under Section 34 (3) of the A&C Act as the duly stamped and executed award was received by the respondents on 01.10.2019 and the present petition has been filed within the stipulated period of three months from that date.

4. The first and foremost question to be decided is whether the petition has been filed within the period as prescribed under Section 34 (3) of the A&C Act. At the outset, it is necessary to note that it is not disputed that if the present petition is held to have been filed beyond the period of thirty days from the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the award; this Court would have no jurisdiction to condone the delay and the present petition is required to be summarily dismissed.

5. Mr Rajshekhar Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned award delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal was insufficiently stamped and therefore, could not be considered as an award. He referred to Section 29 of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899 (hereafter `the STAMP ACT ') and submitted that the obligation for stamping the arbitral award would be upon the executor, that is, the Arbitral Tribunal. He submitted that since the Arbitral Tribunal had not stamped the arbitral award, the same was required to be considered as non est. He also referred to Section 17 of the STAMP ACT , which requires that all instruments chargeable with duty shall be stamped "before or at the time of execution". He submitted that the provisions of the STAMP ACT , are required to be read conjointly with Section 31 of the A&C Act and thus, the impugned award cannot be considered as an award under Section 31 of the A&C Act till such time that it is stamped. He contended that since in the present case, the duly stamped arbitral award was received on 01.10.2019 and the present petition was filed within the period of three months from that date, the same must be considered within the period of limitation as prescribed.

6. Mr Rao, also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in M. Anasuya Devi and Anr. v. M. Manik Reddy and Ors., 2003(8) SCC 565, wherein the Supreme Court had held that the i