SAIL’s ₹213-crore deposit stays unreleased as Delhi HC says unstamped arbitral award cannot be enforced without the original award being stamped

The Judgment Debtor deposited Rs. 2,30,33,32,891 with the High Court Registry pursuant to earlier orders.

In 2024, the Court permitted release of Rs. 17,09,25,000 to the Decree Holder against a bank guarantee for the same amount.

After the Judgment Debtor’s Section 34 challenge and Section 37 appeal were dismissed, the Decree Holder sought discharge of the bank guarantee and release of the remaining deposit.

The Judgment Debtor acknowledged that no stay had been granted by the Supreme Court, but objected that the award was unstamped.

The original award was held in sealed cover by the Supreme Court; the parties had obtained copies pursuant to its directions.

1. Whether the bank guarantee furnished against the amount already released should be discharged after dismissal of the Section 34 petition and Section 37 appeal, where no stay was in force.

2. Whether the balance of the deposit could be released for enforcement of the award when the original award was not before the High Court and the award was alleged to be unstamped.

The Court relied on Article 12 read with Article 15 of Schedule IA to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as amended in Delhi, treating an arbitral award as a chargeable instrument.

It held that a copy of the award could neither be stamped nor impounded under the Stamp Act and that an unstamped award was not executable.

The Court also referred to M/S URC Construction (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, OMP (Enf.)(Comm.) 155/2026, decided 1 September 2026, for the requirement to comply strictly with the applicable stamp, registration and procedural requirements.

The Supreme Court’s order of 14 September 2022 in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. British Marine PLC, Civil Appeal No. 11384/2016, directed that copies of the award be made available to the parties; it did not place the original award before the High Court for enforcement.

Because Rs. 17,09,25,000 had already been released and the challenges to the award had been dismissed, with no Supreme Court stay, the Court found no continuing purpose in retaining security for that sum and discharged the bank guarantee.

As to the balance, the original award was unavailable before the High Court, and the copy could not be stamped or impounded.

Applying the rule that an unstamped award was not executable, the Court concluded that the remaining deposit could not then be released in enforcement of the award.

Ex. Appl. (OS) No. 19/2026, seeking release of the balance deposit, was dismissed.

The Decree Holder was given liberty to bring the original award before the Court, complete the necessary stamp-duty formalities, and thereafter apply afresh for release of the balance.