Stamp duty on a composite arbitral award is payable on its entire value, without territorial apportionment.

Rakesh Rajput advanced a loan to Smt. Sudesh Chawla, resulting in an arbitral award dated 30 October 2014 directing recovery of ₹56,00,000 with interest and creating a charge over six properties situated in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.

During execution proceedings in Execution Case No. 289/2015, respondent No. 4-Bank objected that the award was insufficiently stamped. The Executing Court, by order dated 11 October 2021, held that the award, stamped at ₹100 under the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, required payment of deficit stamp duty on the entire award amount under the applicable provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Separately, property bearing No. E-1/203, Arera Colony, Bhopal, which had been attached and placed with a Receiver, became the subject of an encroachment complaint against Nitesh Goyal. Goyal claimed lawful acquisition through settlement deeds executed in 2020 and 2021 after discharge of the dues of the State Bank of India, whose secured claim under the SARFAESI Act had allegedly prevailed over the arbitral award.

The Executing Court, by orders dated 21 July 2025 and 15 September 2025, held that the Receiver already had lawful custody and required no further order to take protective measures, including seeking police assistance. Goyal’s objection application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC remained pending.

Whether the arbitral award was liable to payment of deficit stamp duty on the entire value of the award, notwithstanding that it had been stamped in Maharashtra and concerned properties situated in different States?

Whether stamp duty could be apportioned according to the value of properties situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bhopal Executing Court?

Whether Nitesh Goyal could challenge the Executing Court’s interlocutory orders concerning the Receiver’s protective custody when his title and possession claim was pending adjudication under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC?

The Court applied Section 17 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, under which an instrument must be stamped before or at the time of execution, and an insufficiently stamped instrument cannot be acted upon or enforced.

Referring to Article 12 of Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act, the Court held that stamp duty on an arbitral award is determined with reference to the value of the document or the market value of the property, as applicable, and that a composite award constitutes one unified instrument whose stamp duty cannot be divided property-wise or State-wise.

The Court also relied on Order XL Rule 1(1)(d) CPC, which empowers a Receiver to protect, preserve and manage property, read with Section 94(e) CPC, which authorises just and convenient interlocutory orders to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated.

An objection concerning resistance to possession is to be adjudicated under Order XXI Rules 97–101 CPC; therefore, a pending objection application does not confer an independent right to challenge a merely protective or custodial order.

The Court treated the arbitral award as a single composite instrument rather than a collection of separate instruments relating to individual properties. Consequently, the award had to satisfy the stamp-duty requirement with reference to its entire value, and the fact that some charged properties were outside Bhopal did not permit apportionment of the stamp duty or exclusion of those properties from the computation.

The Executing Court was therefore justified in directing payment of deficit stamp duty before proceeding with execution.

As to Goyal’s petition, the impugned orders did not determine his title, possession or right over the property; they merely recognised the Receiver’s existing authority to take lawful protective steps under the subsisting attachment and receivership orders.

Since Goyal’s substantive claim was already pending under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, his challenge to those interlocutory orders was premature and not maintainable under Article 227, particularly when the execution proceedings had been stayed and no coercive action against him was presently contemplated.

Rakesh Rajput was directed to pay the deficit stamp duty calculated on the entire value of the arbitral award within the period fixed by the Executing Court, failing which the consequences specified in that order would follow.

Misc. Petition No. 701 of 2026 was disposed of on the ground that Nitesh Goyal lacked locus at that stage to challenge the orders dated 21 July 2025 and 15 September 2025 while his title and possession claim remained pending under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC.

The stay granted in Misc. Petition No. 4143 of 2021 was vacated and the execution proceedings were restored. No order was made as to costs.