A foreign award that relates to a matter or thing to be done in India is chargeable with duty under section 3(c) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

1. The only question for decision in this revision petition is whether a foreign award has to be stamped in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 , before it is filed and made a rule of the Court in India.

2. It appears that there was some dispute between the respondent, Messrs. M. A. Morris Limited London, a Company registered under the provisions of the English Companies Act, and the petitioner, Messrs. Gujrals Company, New Delhi, with regard to the supply of certain goods by the petitioner the respondent. Thereupon, the matter was referred to arbitration in England and the award was given on 25-2-1953, according to which the respondent-Company was entitled to get &325 and 7 Shillings from the petitioner. Further &42 were assessed as costs and fees of the award, which amount was also to be paid by the petitioner. Since no payment was made to the respondent, they filed the present application in the Court to the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, under section 6 of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act and section 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act for the enforcement of the foreign award. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection that the award was inadmissible in evidence, having not been duly stamped. The trial Judge came to the conclusion that the award did not require any stamp and was admissible in evidence. Against this order, the present petition has been filed by Messrs. Gujrals Company.

3. The relevant portion of the award is in the following terms:-

-

"We find the buyers are entitled to the sum of &325-7-od. in respect of their claim and not more, and we award and direct that the sellers shall pay to the buyer the said sum of &325.7.od.

We further award and direct that the costs and fees of this our award, which we assess at the sum of 40 guineas (forty-two pounds), shall be borne and paid by the sellers.

Should the buyers take up and pay for this our award, then we direct that the sellers shall pay to the buyers the aforementioned sum of 40 guineas (forty-two pounds), the costs and fees of this our award."

It is common ground that the only charging section in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which governs the present case is section 3(c), which is in the following words:-

- "Section 3. Subject to the provisions of this Act and the exemptions contained in Schedule I, the following instruments shall be chargeable with duty of the amount indicated in that Schedule as the property duty therefor respectively, that is to say: (a)....................

(b)..............................

(c) every instrument (other than a bill of exchange or promissory-note) mentioned in that schedule, which, not having been previously executed by any person, is executed out of India on or after that day, relates to any property situate, or to any matter or thing done or to be done, in India and is received in India".

The question arises whether this award, which is, admittedly, not a bill of exchange or a promissory-note, and was executed out of India and is received in India, relates to any property situate in India or to any matter or thing done or to be done in India. It is undisputed that it does not relate to any property situate in India. Does it relates to any matter or thing done or to be done in India? In my opinion, it does, because, in the first instance, it has to be filed in a Court situate in India and has to be made a rule of the Court. After that the petitioning-Company, which is situate in India, would become liable to pay the amount awarded by the arbitrators and recovery thereof would also be made here. This would show that this award relates to a matter, or to a thing to be done in India.

4. The trial Judge has held that this award only declares the liability of the petitioners. That may be so. But the question is when this award is brought in India and an effort is being made to make it a rule of the Court so that the amount specified therein in realized from the petitioner, who is