HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M/S Indo Thai Securities Ltd Through Its Authorized Representative Hemant Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
Mr. Gajendra Mohniya – Respondent
MP 2986/2025
##PAGE1##
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36281
1 MP-2986-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
MISC. PETITION No. 2986 of 2025
M/S INDO THAI SECURITIES LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE HEMANT AGRAWAL
Versus
MR. GAJENDRA MOHNIYA
Appearance:
Shri Chiranjeev Saboo, Advocate for the petitioner.
Heard on : 05.12.2025
Pronounced on : 19.12.2025
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India challenging the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the Commercial
Court, Indore in Case No.EX(AB)/731/2024, whereby the execution
application has been dismissed on the ground that the award is not
executable due to non-compliance of the order, whereby the difference of
stamp duty and penalty was imposed on the Award passed under the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a stock company and
member of National Stock Exchange (NSE), Bombay Stock Exchange
(BSE), MCX Stock Exchange Ltd. (MCX) and National Commodity &
Derivatives Exchange Ltd. (NCDEX). The respondent is an individual
trading company engaged in various markets and service provider of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD
Signing time: 19-12-2025
18:24:35
##PAGE2##NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36281
2 MP-2986-2025
petitioner as broker for facilitating its stock market trading and commodity.
The respondent incurred losses while trading at MCX and failed to settle the
same due to which dispute arose between the parties, which was referred to
MCX Arbitration, Mumbai in terms of the bye-laws of MCX and SEBI
Rules and Shri Dinesh Kumar Bishnoi, Panel Arbitrator of MCX Arbitration,
Mumbai was appointed to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The
Arbitrator vide its arbitral award dated 18.08.2023 decided the dispute in
favour of the petitioner. The said award was challenged by the respondent
by filing a petition before the Commercial Court, Indore under Section 34 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short "the Act of 1996") which
was registered as MJC-AV/118/2023. Vide order dated 03.09.2024, the
Commercial Court, Indore dismissed the said application by affirming the
arbitral award. The said dismissal order was not challenged by the
respondent in an appeal under Section 37 of the Act of 199 and therefore, the
order dated 03.09.2024 attained finality and consequently, the arbitral award
dated 18.08.2023 became ripe for its enforcement. Thereupon, execution
petition was filed by the petitioner for enforcement of the arbitral award
dated 18.08.2023, which got registered as EX(AB)/731/2024. During the
proceedings on 29.04.2025, it was apprised to the petitioner that deficit
stamp duty needs to be paid on the arbitral award in terms of the M. P.
Amendment of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 whereupon, counsel for the
petitioner informed that the award was passed in Mumbai and as per
Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (in short "the Act of 1958"), there was a fixed
stamp duty of Rs.500/- on an arbitral award, which was duly paid and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD
Signing time: 19-12-2025
18:24:35
##PAGE3##NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36281
3 MP-2986-2025
thereafter, occasion to pay any additional stamp duty in Madhya Pradesh
arose only at the time of execution petition. Due to technical glitches in the
Sampada Portal's version from 1.0 to 2.0, deficit stamp duty could not be
paid and thereafter, the matter was fixed for 05.05.2025. When the matter
came up for hearing on 05.05.2025, the petitioner having paid the balance
stamp duty as prescribed under the Act of 1899 appeared and shocked to see
that in the impugned order dated 29.04.2025, the Court below had imposed a
penalty of 2% over and above the balance stamp duty to be paid. Being
aggrieved by imposition of penalty, present petition has been preferred.
3. At the outset, counsel submits that the petitioner is not challenging
the applicability of Section 19-A of the Act of 1899, whereby an additional
amount of
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.