Inadequate Arbitral Stamped Awards
In order for an arbitral award to be enforceable, there are various mandatory and non-compulsory necessities that should be satisfied, for appropriate execution or putting aside of arbitral honor. These necessities involve stamping and registration of domestic arbitral awards. Deficiency or any insufficiency in the stepping of reports have certain outcomes over its legitimacy and enforceability. Section 34 and Section 36 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 19961, Section 3 and Section 17 of Indian Stamps Act, 18992 are two major legislations governing these issues. Once the process of arbitration is completed a conclusion is pronounced by delivering an arbitral award. Sections 34 and 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for two outcomes enforcement of the arbitral award by execution and setting aside of the arbitral award. Subsequent to the entry of grant, there are two potential results specifically, putting aside of arbitral award and authorization of such award by execution under Sections 34 and 36 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Under Section 33 of the Stamps Act, a public officer is obligated to impound any document which is inadequately stamped or unstamped. It is a mandatory clause and not merely a directory.
The Supreme Court in N. Bhargavan Pillai v. Province of Kerala while alluding to the said arrangement thought that such an open official while practicing his/her force under Section 33 of the Stamps Act, 1899 cannot force the parties to produce documents and also, has the power to impound only original instruments and not a copy of it. Further, according to Section 31(5) of the Act, after the declaration of the arbitral award each gathering is to be conveyed duplicate of the award, if there should arise an occurrence of challenging such award under Section 34 of the Act, for example testing the award passed on the grounds as counted under Section 34. Subsequently, to correct the contention between Section 33 of Stamps Act, 1899 and Section 34 of the Arbitration Act of 1996, the Delhi High Court practice bearings are to be followed, as indicated by which, on notification from Registry of High Court, Arbitrator is commanded to advance the first arbitral honor alongside the separate arbitral record to the Registry of High Court. However in the case of M. Sons Enterprises Pvt. Ltd the Delhi High Court took another way while considering the interchange between Section 34 of Arbitration Act and Section 33 of Stamps Act. It held rather than the judgment given for Eider's situation, expressing that, the decision passed by Supreme Court for Anasuya's situation can't be refuted according to incuriam as it was quiet over the arrangements under Stamps Act. Considering the conflicts and opposing decisions conveyed by the Supreme Court and High Courts, the subject of the interaction between Section 33 of the Stamps Act, 1899 and Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation is as yet unclear and questionable. Keeping in view the decision passed in the M. Children's case, the topic of enforceability over non-stepping of the award can be addressed under Section 36 of the Act (execution of award). 
 India: Inadequately Stamped Arbitral Awards- Validity And Legal Consequences (by Priya Adlakha and Nihit Nagpal), August 18, 2020, Mondaq
This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, Or Religion Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being. Further, despite all efforts that have been made to ensure the accuracy and correctness of the information published, White Code VIA Mediation and Arbitration Centre shall not be responsible for any errors caused due to human error or otherwise.