Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.N.RAVINDRAN, Devan Ramachandran, JJ
V A SREEKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION 292/2013
Enforcement - Arbitration - Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 - Enforcement of Awards
Fact of the Case:
The civil revision petition challenged a district judge's dismissal of an application claiming the enforcement of an unstamped arbitration award was invalid. The petitioners contended the award was not duly stamped.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the award was duly stamped as per Tamil Nadu law, and no additional stamp duty was required in Kerala for its enforcement. The petitioners later expressed disinterest in proceeding with the case as disputes were settled.
Issues: Whether Kerala Stamp Act Section 19 applies in the context of Rule 9 of the Kerala Arbitration and Conciliation (Court) Rules, 1997 regarding the enforceability of the award.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the enforceability of an award is contingent on the proper stamping according to the relevant jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Final Decision: Civil revision petition dismissed as not pressed.
ORDER
P.N. RAVINDRAN, J.
This civil revision petition arises from the order passed by the Court of the District Judge of Ernakulam on 19.01.2013 in E.A.No.340 of 2012 in E.P.No.70 of 2012 in ACP (Kotak) No.102 of 2011. By the said order the court below dismissed the application filed by the judgment debtor for an order dismissing the execution petition on the ground that the award is not enforceable. The main ground raised before the execution court was that the award, a copy of which was produced by the decree holder in the execution court is not duly stamped. The court below held that the award has been duly stamped as per law in force in the State of Tamil Nadu and no additional stamp duty need be paid in the State of Kerala, when award is sought to be enforced.
2. When this civil revision petition came up before one of us [PNR(J)] on 11.6.2013, an order of reference was passed to consider the question whether, in view of Rule 9 of the Kerala Arbitration and Conciliation (Court) Rules, 1997, Section 19 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 is attracted. The petitioners have after the order of reference was passed, filed a memo dated 27.02.2015 wherein it is stated that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the civil revision petition and therefore the same may be dismissed as not pressed.
3. When the civil revision petition was taken up for consideration today, learned counsel on both sides submitted that parties have settled their disputes out of court and the amount due under the award has been paid. Learned counsel submitted, in such circumstances, the civil revision petition may be dismissed as not pressed, leaving open the question referred for consideration by the Division Bench.
In the light of the said submission and the memo dated
27.02.2015, this civil revision petition is dismissed as not pressed. The question whether in view of Rule 9 of the Kerala Arbitration and Conciliation (Court) Rules, 1997, Section 19 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 is attracted, is kept open to be decided.
P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
