AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Smt. M.C. Nagashree
learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondents. The respondent No. 1 filed arbitral proceedings in case No. 1/2001 claiming certain amount. An award was passed by the Arbitrator as against the petitioner. The said award is sought to be questioned u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the learned District Judge. The Registry it appears had raised an objection that the petitioner is required to pay the requisite stamp duty under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. The said objectiorl by the Registry of the Court was upheld as again; t, which the petitioner is before this Court.
When the matter is taken up both the learned counsel submit that Lhe subject matter of this writ petition is covered by a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of M. Anasuya Devi and Another Vs. M. Manik Reddy and Others,
Since, the subject matter is already covered, I an-i of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside inasmuch as the Apex Court has ruled that in an arbitral proceeding when an award is sought to be questioned u/s 34 of the Act, the question of payment of stamp duty as well as the court fee does not arise. Another contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent is that there is an inordinate delay of 2 1/2 years in filing of the application u/s 34 of the Act. He further submits that it is not accompanied by the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. Indeed, the learned trial Judge is required to consider the application u/s 34 of the Act with reference to the limitation provided under the said provision. Hence, the following order is passed:
(i) Petition is allowed..
(ii) The impugned order is set aside.
(iii) Rule is iseued and made absolute to the extent indicated above.
Smt. M C.Nagashree learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks