Steel Authority of India Limited vs Waterbury Farrel

A No. 955 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON
PRONOUNCED ON
03.07.2026
04.11.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
A No. 955 of 2025
in
EP SR NO. 13383 OF 2025
Steel Authority of India Limited
Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003, India.
Represented by its Constitued Attorney
Mr.S.B.Mathur
..Applicant(s)
Vs
1. M/s. Waterbury Farrel
200 First Gulf Boulevard, Brampton,
Ontario, Canada L6W4T5
Represented by its President and CEO,
Mr.Andre Nazarian
2. M/s. Shriram EPC Ltd.,
9, Vanagaram Road,
Ayanambakkam, Chennai-600095.
and also at New No.10/1, 4th Floor, Bascon
Futura SV, Venkatnarayana Road, T.Nagar,
Chennai-600 017 Represented by its Managing
Director, Mr.Shariff
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: The application is filed seeking the court to direct the Respondent to
state on Affidavit, the list of movable and immovable properties available with
the Respondent as along with the survey numbers and other particulars.
For Applicant(s): Mr.Sunil Kumar Jain
for Mr.Venkatesan
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Vidhya Shankar for R1
Mr.Siddharth Khattar for R2
______________________
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )

A No. 955 of 2025
ORDER
The present application has been filed seeking to direct the respondents to
state on the affidavit, the list of movable and immovable properties available
with the respondents as of date along with the survey numbers and other
particulars.
2. Heard Mr.Sunil Kumar Jain learned counsel for Mr.Venkatesan learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/ decree holder, Mr.R.Vidhya
Shankar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent/Judgment
Debtor and Mr.Siddharth Khattar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
second respondent/ Judgment Debtor.
3. Mr.Sunil Kumar Jain the learned counsel appearing for the
Applicant/Decree Holder would submit that, insofar as the contention of the
Respondents/Judgment Debtors that the Arbitral Award dated 28.02.2019
suffers from deficit stamping and the same is liable to be impounded is
concerned, it is submitted that the Applicant has already paid the deficit stamp
duty payable on the said Award. Thereafter an order dated 12.09.2025 was
passed by this court seeking clarification with regard to the rectification of
deficit stamp fees paid by the applicant and to file an affidavit to understand the
procedure that was adopted by the applicant to pay the deficit stamp duty and
the same has been duly complied with, by filing an affidavit dated 23.09.2025.
______________________
Page 2 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )

A No. 955 of 2025
Therefore, it is contended that, in view of the payment of the deficit stamp duty,
the Award does not require to be impounded.
4. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the present Execution
Petition is maintainable. He further submits that the present application has been
filed seeking a direction towards the Respondents to disclose, by affidavit, the
particulars of their movable and immovable properties, including the survey
numbers and other relevant details, to enable the Applicant to seek attachment
thereof. He submits that such disclosure is necessary for the Execution Petition
to proceed further. The learned counsel would further contend that the
Respondents, being aware of the aforesaid requirement have deliberately raised
untenable objections regarding the stamping of the Award with a view to
delaying the execution proceedings. Hence, he prays that the present application
be allowed.
5. Per Contra , countering the above arguments Mr.R.Vidhya Shankar
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent/ Judgement Debtor
would submit that the first respondent is a foreign party who has no address in
India and there is no proper service of summons on the first respondent in a
manner permissible for the service of summons on the foreign persons. He
submits that the first respondent does not submit to the jurisdiction of the Indian
Courts with regard to the present execution proceedings. The learned counsel
______________________
Page 3 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )

A No. 955 of 2025
further submits that the present Execution Petition has been filed seeking the
execution of an Arbitral Award dated 28.02.2019 passed by the Arbitral
Tribunal constituted under the aegis of ICC, Paris in Case No.21382/CYK/PTA.
He submits that this Court is neither the Court which passed the decree nor a
Court within whose jurisdiction the First respondent carried on business. He
further submits that the first Respondent has neither any place of business nor
any branch office in India, nor owns any property within India. Therefore, it is
contended that the present Execution Petition is not maintainable before this
Court or any other Court in India insofar as the first respondent is concerned.
6. The learned counsel further submits that in terms of Section 36 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act an Award is enforceable only by a Court
within whose jurisdiction the Judgment debtor resides or carries on business or
has properties within the said jurisdiction. In that regard he had relied upon the
Hon’ble Apex Court’s Judgements made in the cases of Sundaram Finance Vs
Abdul Samad & Anr and Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs Sivakama Sundari &
Ors reported in (2011) 4 LW 745. He further submits that the section 42 of the
Act would does not apply, whereas only the section 38 of CPC would apply to a
decree passed by this Court, while in the present case no court has passed the
decree. In that regard he had reliance upon the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
judgment made in the case of Daelim Industrial Co.Ltd. Vs Numaligarh
Refinery Ltd., reported in (2009) 159 DLT 579 .
______________________
Page 4 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )

A No. 955 of 2025
7. Further the learned counsel submits that he had filed a memo dated
05.06.2026 before this court, intimating that the CRP.No.1138 of 2023, which
was pending before this court, came to be allowed vide the order dated
21.04.2026. Pursuant to which a memo dated 03.06.2026 in D.No.6284 had
been also filed before the Learned Principal District Judge, Salem intimating the
aforesaid order dated 21.04.2026 made in the Civil Revision Petition and sought
for the return of the bundle. He submits that the orders are yet to be passed upon
the aforesaid memo filed and the respondents are awaiting for the return of the
bundle to appropriately represent the same before this court. The learned
counsel further contends from the above facts it is evident that the Arbitral
Award dated 28.02.2019 had not attained the finality, against which the present
execution proceedings is not maintainable.
8. Not withstanding the aforesaid contentions and without prejudice, the
learned counsel contends that the first respondent has no movable or immovable
assets in India against which the Applicant can proceed with the execution
proceedings to seek warrant of attachment. Hence in view of the aforesaid
submissions the learned counsel seeks this court to terminate the Execution
Proceedings against the first respondent.
9. Mr.Siddharth Khattar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
______________________
Page 5 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )

A No. 955 of 2025
second respondent, would submit that the Arbitral Award dated 28.02.2019 has
been stamped insufficiently. He further submits that the Award itself
specifically records that it was made on a stamp paper of Rs.100/- and that any
deficit stamp duty, if payable, is to be borne by the Claimant before enforcing
the Award. The learned counsel further submits that the Applicant had earlier
filed an Execution Petition before the Hon’ble Delhi Court, wherein the Second
Respondent raised an objection that the Arbitral Award was insufficiently
stamped and in terms of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, the same could not
be received in evidence and the said award liable to be impounded under
Section 33 thereof. Thereafter, the Applicant/Decree Holder withdrew the said
Execution Petition with liberty to approach the competent Court, pursuant to
which the present Execution Petition has been instituted before this Court.
10. It is submitted that the Second Respondent, in its counter-affidavit,
reiterated its preliminary objection towards the maintainability of the present
Execution Petition on the ground that the Arbitral Award was insufficiently
stamped, as stated supra and had specifically contended that, in terms of Section
35 of the Indian Stamp Act, the Award could neither be received in evidence
nor acted upon until the deficit stamp duty was duly paid. Thereafter, the
learned counsel for the Applicant/Award Holder submitted that the Award
Holder was willing to pay the deficit stamp duty and the said submission was
______________________
Page 6 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )

A No. 955 of 2025
recorded by this Court in its order dated 31.07.2025. Subsequently, when the
matter was listed on 12.09.2025, the learned counsel for the Applicant
submitted that the requisite stamp duty had been paid and the deficit stamp duty
has been duly rectified. Consequently, by order dated 12.09.2025, this Court
directed the Applicant to file an affidavit setting out the procedure adopted for
payment of the deficit stamp duty.
11. The learned counsel submits that, pursuant to the order dated
12.09.2025, the Applicant filed an affidavit dated 23.09.2025, however, instead
of setting out the procedure adopted for rectifying the deficit stamp duty, the
Applicant had merely stated that a sum of of Rs.4,39,563/- had been paid
towards stamp duty. It is further submitted that the Applicant of its own accord
had affixed the requisite stamp papers to the Award subsequent to the objections
raised by the Respondent herein and the same does not cure the defect of
insufficient stamping. The learned counsel contends that the defect of
insufficient stamping ought to cured only by following the procedure prescribed
by law, namely, by impounding the Award and forwarding the same to the
competent Stamp Collector for adjudication of the proper stamp duty and
penalty, if any. It is therefore submitted that the mere payment of an amount
towards the alleged deficit stamp duty, as unilaterally calculated by the
Applicant, cannot amount to a due rectification of the defect of insufficient
stamping. In support of his contention, the learned counsel had placed reliance
______________________
Page 7 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )

A No. 955 of 2025
upon the Hon’ble Apex Court judgement made in the case of Hindustan Steel
Ltd. Vs M/s. Dilip Construction Company reported in 1969 (3) SCR 736 and
the judgement made by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case
of Santosh Champalal Jain Vs. Smt. Vimla Bai reported in 1998 (2) MPLJ
164 .
12. The learned counsel further submits that the learned counsel for the
Applicant had further relied upon the interplay between the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and in that regard he
had relied upon the judgements made in Curative Petition (C) No.44 of 2023
reported as (2024) 6 SCC 1 and Sundaram Finance Limited Vs. Mukesh
Parasher and Another reported in 2024 SCC Online MP 6630 . The learned
counsel submits that the aforesaid judgment reported in (2024) 6 SCC 1 deals
with the insufficiently stamped Arbitration Agreement, whereas the facts of the
present case rests upon the insufficiently stamped Arbitration Award. Similarly
the other judgement reported in 2024 SCC Online MP 6630 deals with the
applicability of Section 19-A of the Indian Stamp Act, which is a State specific
provision which is applicable only within the state of Madhya Pradesh.
Therefore he contends that the aforesaid judgements are not applicable to the
facts of the present case. Hence in light of the forgoing submissions and
arguments, the learned counsel prays this court to dismiss both the Application
______________________
Page 8 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )

A No. 955 of 2025
and the Execution Petition.
13. I have heard the submission made on both the sides and have perused
the materials available on record
14. It is pertinent to note that it is neither the dispute of applicant nor the
respondents, that the Arbitral Award dated 28.02.2019 was not insufficiently
stamped. Further it is not the dispute of the respondents that whether the
applicant has paid the deficit stamp duty or not. However it is the case of the
respondents that the payment of stamp duty by the Applicant towards the defect
of insufficient stamping, has not been effected inaccordance with procedure
prescribed as per the law. Consequently the learned respondent counsels
contended that the Arbitral Award is liable to be impounded as per the section
33 of the Indian Stamp Act. Therefore the main issue which lies before this
court which needs to be determined for the proper adjudication of both the
present Application and the Execution Petition is delineated hereinunder;
“Whether the Arbitral Award dated 28.02.2019 needs to
be impounded for the maintainability of the Execution
Petition?”
15. In order to adjudicate the above issue, it is necessary to understand the
interrelation and distinction between the Section 36 of the Act and the Section
______________________
Page 9 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )

A No. 955 of 2025
33 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899. Section 36 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 provides the statutory procedure for enforcement of an
arbitral award. Upon the expiry of the period prescribed for challenging the
award under Section 34 or upon such challenge having been rejected, the award
becomes enforceable in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court. Thus,
Section 36 enables the award-holder to directly invoke the execution
proceedings for enforcement of the liability already determined and crystallised
in the Arbitral Award, without requiring any fresh adjudication of such liability.
For better understanding the relevant portion of the section is extracted
hereinunder:
“36. Enforcement:-
(1) where the time for making an application to set aside the
arbitarl award under section 34 has expired, then, subject to
the provisions of sub- section(2), such award shall be
enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in the same manner as if it
were a decree of the Court
...”
16. The primordial contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondents is that the Arbitral Award dealt in the present case, having been
insufficiently stamped is liable to be impounded under Section 33 of the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899. Insofar as the section 33 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 is
consider, the provisions therein are squarely applicable to Instruments. As per
______________________
Page 10 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )

A No. 955 of 2025
the section 2(14) of the Indian Stamps Act, every document, by which any right
or liability is, or purports to be, created, transferred, limited, extended,
extinguished or recorded is an Instrument. For better understanding the relevant
portions of the aforesaid sections are extracted hereinunder
Section 33 Section 2(14)
33.  (1) Every person having by law or
consent of parties authority to receive
evidence, and every person in charge of a
public office, except an officer of police,
before whom any instrument, chargeable,
in his opinion, with duty, is produced or
comes in the performance of his
functions, shall, if it appears to him that
such instrument is not duly stamped,
impound the same.
…..
Instrument- “Instrument” includes every
document by which any right or liability
is or purports to be created, transferred,
limited, extended, extinguished or
recorded
…..
17. An Instrument is a one which creates a right/ liability based upon a
contract that is being/ had been entered between the parties. Whereas an Award
which arises out of an arbitral proceedings, which had been initiated based upon
the aforesaid instrument entered between the parties, only determines the rights
and liabilities of the parties arising out of such an instrument. Eventhough the
said Award is termed to be an Instrument, it is to be noted that it does not create
a fresh right or liability, but only determines the right and liability flowing out
of an instrument voluntarily executed between the parties. In that regard an
Award cannot be termed to as an Instrument which falls within the rigour of
______________________
Page 11 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )

A No. 955 of 2025
Section 33 of Indian Stamps Act, for determining the Stamp Duty by following
the guidelines to ascertain the value of the document. The Award determines the
right and liability which crystalises the same. It is also to be noted that the
rigour of section 33 is only to deter the parties from evading the Stamp duties
which requires adjudication of the value of the document, whereas the award
already crystalizes the liabilities and rights which requires no further
adjudication of the Stamp Authority. That apart there can be no doubt that there
is an undervaluation of the rights made in the award. In that regard this court is
of the view that the procedure of contemplating the stamp duties is not
applicable to the Award.
18. The contention that the Judgement Debtor does not possess any
movable or immovable assets before this court, can only be gone into after there
is disclosure of the same by the way of filing the affidavit. Even if the case of
the Judgement Debtor is accepted there would be no prejudice in furnishing the
details of the assets through affidavit, as only thereafter the jurisdiction of the
court could be gone into.
19. Therefore in light of the above, the aforesaid issue is answered in
favor of the maintainability of the present Execution proceedings. Hence this
court is of the considered view that the present Execution Proceedings instituted
by the Applicant in E.P.Sr.No.13383 of 2025 is maintainable. The respondents
______________________
Page 12 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )

A No. 955 of 2025
are directed to file an affidavit furnishing list of movable and immovable
properties available with the respondents as of date along with the Survey
Numbers and other required details within six (6) weeks from the date of this
order. Accordingly the present Application stands allowed. No costs.
04-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
GBA
______________________
Page 13 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )

A No. 955 of 2025
K.KUMARESH BABU J.
GBA
Pre-delivery Order made in
A No. 955 of 2025
in
EP SR NO. 13383 of 2025
04-11-2026
______________________
Page 14 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )