Ashimara Housing Pvt Ltd vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi

Court
Delhi High Court

$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: October 14 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010436642023
+ W.P.(C) 14226/2023 & CM APPL. 56300/2023
ASHIMARA HOUSING PVT LTD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aman Bhalla, Adv.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Avni Singh, PC- GNCTD
with Mr. Vaibhav Sharma &
Ms. Sanskriti Nautiyal, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges order No.
1/COS (KJ)/IMP/2023/7920-24 dated 16.10.2023 (hereafter
‘ impugned order ’) passed by the Collector of Stamps, Kalkaji,
District South East whereby the Collector of Stamps refused to
adjudicate the stamp duty payable on the arbitral award and instead
directed the petitioner to approach the Collector of Stamps at Mohali
to get the lease agreement mentioned in the arbitral award to be
stamped first.
2. Succinctly stated, the petitioner and one Mandeep Singh had
executed a lease agreement on 17.05.2019 for operating a guest
house/hotel. Due to some dispute between the parties, arbitration
proceedings were instituted which culminated in the award dated
31.03.2023 which was thereafter modified vide final award dated
20.05.2023. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under
Section 31 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 requesting adjudication of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:16.10.2026
21:03:23
W.P.(C) 14226/2023 Page 1 of 5

appropriate stamp duty on the arbitral award passed by the learned
Sole Arbitrator. In the course of the same, the Collector of Stamps
demanded a copy of the lease agreement which was furnished by the
petitioner.
3. Thereafter, the Collector of Stamps took note of the fact that the
learned Sole Arbitrator, during the course of the arbitral proceedings,
had framed an issue pertaining to whether the lease agreement is a
compulsorily registrable document under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899
and on the insistence of the parties; the said issue was not adjudicated.
The Collector of Stamps then noted that the arbitrator being a public
officer was required to impound the lease agreement which he failed
to do so. The Collector of Stamps further noted that the parties had
colluded to deliberately cause loss to the exchequer. Consequently, by
the impugned order, the Collector of Stamps directed the petitioner to
approach the Collector of Stamps at Mohali and get the lease
agreement adequately stamped, and refused to entertain the
application under Section 31 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present
petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned
order is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. He submits that the
Collector of Stamps when presented with an application under Section
31 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is only required to determine the
duty with which the instrument is chargeable. He submits that the
Collector of Stamps cannot refuse adjudication and direct the parties
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:16.10.2026
21:03:23
W.P.(C) 14226/2023 Page 2 of 5

to get the lease agreement signed as a precondition to determining the
stamp duty payable on the arbitral award. He consequently submits
that the impugned order is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent
submits that the Collector of Stamps, in good faith, while adjudicating
the stamp duty payable on the arbitral award found that the parties, in
an effort to avoid payment, deliberately did not get the said document
registered. She submits that the said issue was framed even by the
arbitral tribunal, and the said issue was not decided by the arbitrator
on the insistence of the parties. She submits that the Collector of
Stamps being a public officer consequently directed the parties to get
the lease agreement stamped as the same formed the backbone of the
arbitral award. She consequently submits that the impugned order is
well merited and warrants no interference by this Court.
7. Having taken note of the rival contentions of the parties, this
Court is of the opinion that the approach taken by the Collector of
Stamps was erroneous and cannot be countenanced.
8. In order to appreciate the same, this Court first deems it
apposite to take note of Section 31 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899
which reads as follows:
“31. Adjudication as to proper stamp.—(1) When any instrument,
whether executed or not and whether previously stamped or not, is
brought to the Collector, and the person bringing it applies to have
the opinion of that officer as to the duty (if any) with which it is
chargeable, and pays a fee of such amount (not exceeding five
rupees and not less than [fifty naye paise]) as the Collector may in
each case direct, the Collector shall determine the duty (if any)
with which, in his judgment the instrument is chargeable.
(2) For this purpose the Collector may require to be furnished with
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:16.10.2026
21:03:23
W.P.(C) 14226/2023 Page 3 of 5

an abstract of the instrument, and also with such affidavit or other
evidence as he may deem necessary to prove that all the facts and
circumstances affecting the chargeability of the instrument with
duty, or the amount of the duty with which it is chargeable, are
fully and truly set forth therein, and may refuse to proceed upon
any such application until such abstract and evidence have been
furnished accordingly:
Provided that—
(a) no evidence furnished in pursuance of this section shall be used
against any person in any civil proceeding, except in an enquiry as
to the duty with which the instrument to which it relates is
chargeable; and
(b) every person by whom any such evidence is furnished, shall, on
payment of the full duty with which the instrument to which it
relates, is chargeable, be relieved from any penalty which he may
have incurred under this Act by reason of the omission to state
truly in such instrument any of the facts or circumstances
aforesaid.”
9. As is apparent from a plain reading of Section 31 of the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 as quoted supra, the same in unambiguous terms
lays down that the Collector’s jurisdiction is confined to determining
the stamp duty with which the instrument presented before the
Collector for adjudication is chargeable. The provision further
stipulates that when any instrument is brought before the Collector,
and the person presenting the instrument seeks the opinion of the
Collector pertaining to the duty with which the presented instrument is
chargeable, the Collector shall determine the duty if payable on the
instrument. The repeated reference of the term ‘instrument’ makes it
abundantly clear that the inquiry contemplated in the section is only
instrument specific and does not confer a general power to investigate
stamping of every document connected with the instrument presented
for adjudication.
10. Section 31 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is complete in itself
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:16.10.2026
21:03:23
W.P.(C) 14226/2023 Page 4 of 5

and the same ends by saying that the Collector shall determine.
Consequently, the same does not contemplate any further action to be
taken by the Collector except the determination of stamp duty with
which the instrument presented is chargeable [Ref. Govt. of U.P. v.
Raja Mohd. Amir Ahmad Khan : 1961 SCC OnLine SC 274 ]. On
such a conspectus, in the present case as well, the Collector of Stamps
was only required to determine the applicable duty on the arbitral
award. In doing so, the Collector of Stamps could not have ventured
into the fact that the arbitral tribunal had failed to make any
determination on the issue that the lease agreement was a
compulsorily registrable document on the insistence of the parties to
direct stamping of the lease agreement. The Collector of Stamps thus,
in setting a precondition and directing the petitioner to first approach
the Collector of Stamps at Mohali and get the Lease Agreement
stamped before approaching the Collector of Stamps in relation to the
arbitral award, was in overreach of its jurisdiction contemplated under
Section 31 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899. Any action warranted in
respect of the lease agreement is distinct, and the same cannot be
imposed as a precondition for adjudicating the stamp duty payable on
the arbitral award.
11. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside.
Pending application also stands disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
OCTOBER 14, 2026/ “SS”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:16.10.2026
21:03:23
W.P.(C) 14226/2023 Page 5 of 5