SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 11183

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



Advocates:
Chiranjeev Saboo,

##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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top